Deus Vult

Gnon wills it.

Trump cannot get stuff done, because he is merely president, and the permanent government is full of people that hate him.

But it is not just the permanent government. His political appointees are in bed with his enemies, and are subverting his agenda. Two years after Hitler was elected, Hitler had a Nazi running ever boy scout troop and every trade union chapter. Trump cannot even get a Trumpist running border security.

The one area where Trump has been successful is putting his people in the judiciary. Trumpist judges, though still massively outnumbered, are coming in at every level. Trump has been effective in appointing judges, because he has a big bench he can draw upon, which bench knows who whom, which bench is self policing, which bench can be relied upon to carry out his program without him needing to be on their back. Personnel is policy, and the Federalist society has a supply.

Reflect on the Federalist society: They have their article of faith – original intent. And they have a network to identify their fellow faithful. Just as Constantine adopted Christianity that provided him with a cohesive group to staff his government, in a Roman Empire disintegrating from elite incohesion.

To govern, you need a synthetic tribe, which Hitler had, which Constantine adopted, and which Trump lacks, except for the federalist society which is narrowly focused on judicial process.

The Federalist article of faith (Original Intent) that provides unity and cohesion is also an effective antibody against enemy outgroups. It is something no leftist can admit is even thinkable – to them, just words with no meaning that they dare conceive of. So when leftist entryists attempt to infiltrate the Federalists, they use their shibboleths incorrectly, like a Marxist purporting to be channeling Adam Smith, and wind up babbling random nonsensical meaningless scripted formulaic NPC gibberish.

We, on the other hand, agree with the leftists, that original intent is not really going to fly, while we agree with the Federalists that judges exercising executive, legislative, budgetary authority is intolerable. One emperor is a stationary bandit. A thousand little emperors is mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. We, however, propose a solution far more radical than that of the federalists – that the final court of appeal should be the Sovereign, should be Moses, the King, or the President, and he should be able to intervene in any case, and fire any judge. We also propose William the Conqueror’s “forms of action”, meaning that judges should be reduced to data entry clerks filling out forms that result in remote procedure calls to a system of central databases, similar to the system used by Australia’s border control force for dealing with “Illegal persons”. (Australian Border Force is Judge Dredd with more typing required than Judge Dredd had to do, but the same refreshing speed, efficiency, and absence of lawyers and priestly robes as with Judge Dredd.) William the Conqueror’s “Forms of action” kept judges in line for seven hundred years, and modern databases and remote procedure calls make William the Conqueror’s solution lightning fast, so that it can be applied by a cop on the beat, after the fashion of Judge Dredd and the Australian Border Force.

We have our mailing lists and forums, like the federalist society. What we don’t have is some articles of faith, a canon, a creed, a catechism. Constantine’s Christians had a creed. Trump’s federalist society has one. By getting agreement on certain principles, we can identify our fellow faithful, we can provide a tribe capable of governing. Our basic plan is that someone grabs power, needs a tribe to actually govern. Ideally, a warrior grabs power at gunpoint, swiftly discovers that guns do not suffice, realizes he needs a priesthood, looks around for a priesthood, finds us, as Constantine found Christendom, and Trump found the Federalist Society. When Trump appoints someone in charge of border security, he does not necessarily get someone who favors border security. When Trump appoints a Federalist Society judge, he reliably gets a Federalist, as Constantine reliably got a Christian, and Hitler reliably got a Nazi.

The political appointees that Trump appoints are frequently disloyal to Trump and hostile to his agenda. The Federalist Judges he appoints are loyal to federalism, thus reasonably loyal to Trump and supportive of his agenda. Indeed the left regularly complains that federalist judges are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than they are to federalism, which is not true, but has a substantial grain of truth in that federalist judges appointed on the basis of their federalism are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than are political appointees appointed on the basis of loyalty to Trump and his agenda. The Federalist society polices itself. Trump is not having much success policing Trump political appointees.

We are the reaction. Our program is to rectify social decay by reviving ancient and lost social technologies, among them Pauline marriage. These ancient social technologies tend, for the most part, to be social technologies preserved by Christianity through the Dark Age following the collapse of the Roman Empire, and by the Children of Israel through the dark age following the collapse of Bronze Age civilization, thus our program is Christian – old type Christian. Modern type Christians tend to assimilate to progressivism and worship demons.

There is a lot of stuff in the New Testament that can plausibly be used to justify gnosticism, communism, and suicidal social policies, stuff that is plausibly interpreted as opposed to family, social cohesion, and civilization “There is neither Jew nor Greek”. But those variants of Christianity that survived have given sane, Gnon compliant, survival consistent, interpretations of these statements, banishing the crazy from this world to the next. After the resurrection there will be neither Jew nor Greek, neither man nor women, but in the here and now, women should obey their husbands. The New and Old Testaments, as generally interpreted by the community of saints in the apostolic succession, is sound social technology. It commands a market economy, durable marriage, and the authority of husbands and fathers over wives and daughters.

Nature’s God is the Gods of the copybook headings. The God of the Old and New Testament keeps getting reinterpreted as the Gods of the marketplace, but the ancient and long lasting Christian tradition is expressed by those copybook headings – Natures God, a God who in the fall instituted evolutionary psychology and a world of conflict accurately described by game theory. The curse of Eve explains the distressing female behavior also explained by evolutionary psychology, but people who are reluctant to believe in On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, for example Vox Day, tend to interpret away the Curse of Eve and become blue pilled, or at best purple pilled, on women. I have often sarcastically remarked how in Vox Day’s books Action Girl is apt to rescue the Lad in Distress. Darwin protects us from that heresy better than overly literal biblical literalism.

So: here are the articles of the Canon:

Throne

Altar

Freehold

Family

Property

Throne

Division of powers, divided sovereignty does not work, more rulers means mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. A stationary bandit has better incentives than a mobile bandit.

Altar

You cannot separate state and church. The church will undermine the state and take state power for itself, or the state subvert the church, or both at once. Harvard is our high holy Cathedral. A holiness spiral ensues as the priestly classes, the professoriat, the judiciary, and the media, pursue power by each being holier than the other. Obviously we have a state religion a state religion that every day becomes crazier, more dogmatic, and more intrusive, and that state religion needs to be formalized and made official so that the high priest and grand inquisitor can stop holiness spirals.

When Charles the Second was restored, the people of England held pagan celebrations, in the correct expectation that an officially official religion would be less repressive than an unofficially official religion.

The earthly telos of holiness is to promote the broadest possible cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Holiness competition results in people finding grounds to declare other people unholy, thus Starbucks and LucasFilms declare their customers unholy, thus holiness competition destroys the earthly telos of holiness. Therefore we cannot allow excessively holy people to gain power in the state religion. Which requires that the state religion be formally the state religion, and appropriate restraints applied.

Freehold

Freehold necessarily involves and requires rejection of the principle of equality before the law, and property rejection of equality of outcomes. Not all men were created equal, nor are women equal to men, nor is one group or category of men equal to another. Stereotypes are stereotypical, because the stereotype is usually true for most individual members of the group or category.

We have never had equality before the law, and are having it less every day. Cops have a special right to use violence, blacks have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted, similar to that of the traditional aristocracy, Hispanics and illegal immigrants in California have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted.

State building is coalition building to rule. We need a coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, ruling the stupid, the disruptive, and the destructive. The doctrine of equality means you cannot reward the elite with status? What! Of course the ruling elite is going to be rewarded with status, and that is exactly what is happening.

The ruling elite always gets rewarded, the ruling coalition always gets rewarded. Members of the ruling coalition always get a superior right to use violence, and a superior right to not be insulted. That is the way it is, and that is what we saw when white people were ethnically cleansed out of Detroit. The doctrine of equality before the law was always a lie intended to destroy the coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, to guilt the best people into surrender, so that they could be destroyed by a coalition of the worst.

Freehold means that we acknowledge that some state power is in fact private property, and the sovereign lets his loyal vassals enjoy their privilege, because if he tries to meddle, he will be overwhelmed by detail and complexity, so best to formalize that privilege and make it official. If we don’t have the aristocracy that so offended the founding fathers, we find ourselves with blacks exercising aristocratic privilege over whites. Equality before the law is an unworkable ideal, hypocritically betrayed in actual practice. Some people are going to be unjustly privileged. Let us try to make it the best people rather than the worst people, and try to make it the people that the state draws is wealth and coercive power from, rather than the people who sponge off the state.

Family

The immense biological and reproductive differences between men and women means that they can only cooperate for family formation on asymmetric, unequal terms. The wife has a duty to honor and obey, the husband to love and cherish. To ensure cooperation between men and women, the state, the family, society, and religion have to force men and women who sleep together to stick together, to force them to perform their marital duties, to force the man to cherish and the woman to obey, otherwise you get defect/defect, and reproduction and family become difficult for both men and woman.

For hypergamy to be eugenic rather than dysgenic, taxpayers and warriors need to have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted. For marriage to work, pimps, sluts, and whores need to have a substantially less protection against violence, insult, and rape. For marriage to be incentive compatible for women it has to be simply legal for a respectable man to chain a slut up in his basement, and if she does not want to risk that outcome, she needs to sign up in a nunnery or submit to husband. A right to protection should require chastity and/or submission to the authority of a husband or father. Sluts shall have legal authority equal to chaste women? What! This inevitably results in sluts being given legal status higher than that of chaste woman, and that is exactly what is happening. Wives, like whites, are very much second class low status citizens. We have an aristocracy, and black whores are at the top.

Women always wind up heading off the protection of the most alpha male around. If that is the protection of uncle Sam, you get what we have got.

You will notice that the doctrine that all women shall be equal required and led to the doctrine that all women are naturally chaste, enshrined in our current law on rape and sexual harassment, which presupposes that the primary person who is harmed by rape and sexual harassment is the woman, and the primary person who is going to object to it and be distressed by it is the woman, rather than the father, her biological kinfolk, and the husband. The transparent falsity and absurdity of this doctrine leads to the transparent falsity and absurdity of all rape and sexual harassment charges and convictions, as near to all of them as makes no difference. Legal equality necessitates and results in a denial of biological inequality.

Rape and sexual harassment laws that give women equal status to males are a problem, because in practice their resistance to rape and sexual harassment is a fitness test – they are pissed at you if you fail the test, not pissed by being successfully raped. So rape and sexual harassment charges based on the legal theory that these are crimes against the women herself, rather than her husband or family, always originate from failed shit tests – and the overwhelming majority of these failures do not involve rape and sexual harassment. What happens in the vast majority of cases, for all practical purposes all of them, is that a woman is sexually attracted to a man, hits him with a brutal and hard to pass shit test out of the blue, he fails, she feels creeped out, and comes to believe that something must have happened that legally justifies her feeling of being creeped out. In the rare and unusual occasions when they are based on an actual attempt at rape or sexual harassment, they are based not on the rape or the sexual harassment, but on the man failing her fitness test by retreating from her hostile response. They originate from male behavior that is not all that bad – just weak, the male trying something, but then retreating in the face of determined opposition.

We cannot give women the same legal right to protection against violence and insult as men, because they fail to cooperate in that protection. The best we can do is grant state backing for nunneries, husbands, and fathers protecting their wives and daughters, because husbands and fathers are are going to cooperate in that protection, and the male priests supervising the nunnery will cooperate in that protection. Violence and insult against women has to be handled as an offense against the male authority that cares for them, because if handled as an offense against the women themselves, the women are unhelpful, untruthful, deluded, and uncooperative, failing to report the kind of offenses that we want to suppress, and delusively reporting non offenses.

Men and women want families. Men and women want to cooperate to have families. But prisoners dilemma gets in the way. To fix the prisoner dilemma problem, need to hit women with a stick.

Property

Anti discrimination law violates people’s property rights. Google hates us, but the problem is not primarily too much capitalism, but too little. In the James Damore affair, Google’s Human Resources Department (the Human Resources department being a tentacle of the state inserted into every corporation) threatened the board and the management of Google with a lawsuit for not hating us enough, issuing an official opinion that thinking forbidden thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women”. Because stereotypes are usually true, private individuals and corporations should be free to make use of the information expressed by stereotyping. The trouble with libertarians and libertarianism is that they support every socialist intervention that is destroying our lives and our economy.

Family law and anti discrimination law violates the fourth amendment and the seventh, eighth, and final commandments

Anti discrimination law reaches into a man’s property, and commands it to be applied to the good of the ruling coalition, and moment to moment consent to sex reaches into a man’s marriage and abolishes marriage.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The state deciding whether James Damore’s thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women” is an unreasonable search if ever there was, and it is an obvious violation of private property rights that libertarians would get terribly excited by if the government was bothering a black serial murderer.

Technological advance and industrialization comes from Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor. We first see this archetype appear immediately after the restoration, when Charles the Second made it OK to use the corporate form to get rich. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand’s hero is not heroically on our side, contrary to what Ayn Rand promised. He unheroically endorses the official religion, knowing his property could be attacked if he does not. But we should keep in mind that this makes him merely the instrument of power, not power. When we are in charge he will support our official religion and scarcely notice the change in the slogans posted in the rec room, which formerly endorsed coveting what belonged to others and females adopting male clothing and roles, but will then condemn coveting and endorse males performing male roles and females performing female roles.

Rand’s superman is not on our side. But he is not on the progs side. He is his own side, and this makes him largely irrelevant for political power, which requires cohesion.

The state can facilitate science by being a customer and buying high tech stuff. Indeed, a great deal of advance has come from the state seeking means to hurt people and break their toys, but when the state tries to itself advance technology, it usually turns out badly: Nasa could not build rockets. Kidnapped Wernher von Braun. Asked him how to build rockets. Still could not build rockets.

Nasa puts Wernher von Braun in charge. Now it can build rockets. Puts a man on the moon.

Wernher von Braun retires. New types of rockets don’t work. Old types of rockets gradually stop working no matter how much government money is poured down the toilet.

Where did Nasa find Wernher von Braun?

Nazis kidnapped him from the German rocket club which they shut down.

Seems obvious that we would have wound up with a whole lot better rocket technology if the rocket club became, or spawned, a bunch of startups, one of them led by Wernher von Braun, and governments outsourced rockets. Which is what gave us the reusable booster that lands as a rocket should land.

Before Wernher von Braun, american government rockets did not work. After Wernher von Braun, government rockets gradually stopped working. And the rocket club, not the Nazis, and not NASA, found Wernher von Braun.

Radar and wartime electronics present a similar story. Harvard created a huge radar and counter radar program during the war – which led nowhere, as NASA’s rockets went nowhere after Wernher von Braun retired.

This entry was posted on Monday, January 28th, 2019 at 03:13 and is filed under politics, war. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

290 Responses to “Deus Vult”

I take it you aren’t “black-pilled” by Trump backing down on the government shutdown? I honestly don’t know what to think anymore, it sounds like all that is going to happen is that the government will just get shutdown again in three weeks when the Dems and him inevitably hate each other and refuse to come to a deal again. If that’s the case, why did he end it when he knows it is just going to happen again? To make government employees who hate him feel good?

Trump says that it is a promise he is going to keep. And, in fact, he has been (illegally) keeping it, which is, like Tony Abbott deporting the Tamils, a shot across the bows of the judiciary. It is close to being a Jackson, and it is a hint that if the judiciary pushes too hard, they will face a Jackson. The Judiciary capitulated to Abbot. They capitulated to Duterte. I think they are going to capitulate to Trump. Either he gets wall funding, or his state of emergency is ruled legal, or he just builds the wall anyway.

Trump by turning the shutdown on and off looks moderate, and, if he turns it on again, looks in control. I think it is framing and showmanship, not capitulation.

Agreed. He is in charge of the government; it does not serve him to simply leave it “off”. It is most effectively used in a carrot and stick approach, which means toggling it on and off in response to varying levels of cooperation.

As resistance hardened to the shutdown, Trump did what he always does – he went around it.

What does this have to do with the judiciary though? So far, it seems like the main focus of the conflict is getting the veneer of legality for the wall through Congress, not the courts. Yes, some federal appeals courts like Hawaii are being bitches about it, but as far as I know the Supreme Court is staying out of the border wall issue.

Trump repeatedly demonstrates that he is enormously more intelligent and better informed than those people who denigrate him. They live in an echo chamber, and conclude he must be stupid because he fails to reflexively believe official truth as officially proclaimed in their echo chamber.

He doesn’t believe any truth, he’s as malleable as silly putty. If you’re going to replace the Cathedral you can’t do it with a religion that is immediately and trivially falsifiable. You don’t actually believe Trump is GEOTUS so there’s no way to convince other people. You’ve said you think Q is fake, so why do you pretend Trump is playing 5d chess?

Turning on the government for temporary three week period allows essential government employees such as the Coast Guard and air traffic controller’s to be paid back pay while nonessential employees risk being RIF’d.

The eye of Soros appears to be nonessential employees. Apparently a group of them tasked with forcing companies like Verizon to pay for useless Buzzfeed and HuffPo opinion writers ( whose opinions can be found for free on places like Reddit) got RIF’d.

Agreed, except
1. Nunneries are un-Biblical.
2. Throne is a requirement for a corrupt and degenerate people, but the theocracy described under the Law is a superior form for a virtuous one. There is currently no virtuous populace in the West.

There are lots of things that the overwhelming majority of all Protestant Groups still teach and believe even though there’s not Biblical Evidence. And obviously the same for Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Catholics, etc. Get over it.

Why should we care if they want to be chaste or not? I think depending on the region you might get far too many. I think you are correct in terms of Latin countries, Australia, France most of Eastern and Central Europe and Quebec and the American South… otoh the rest of the Anglosphere outside the American South and Australia has a plague of sexually frigid man hating bitches and lesbians and a lot of them would take it if they don’t get their unrealistic vampire billionaire demon-prince super alpha. Being a sexually frigid man hating bitch should not be rewarded in any way.

The problem right now is you have women who want it all ways, they want the status of virgin AND wife AND they want to be able to fuck around. The “frigid bitches” are a competition problem, where the women are all competing for the biggest whore status instead of the wife status.

If you give women the choice of virgin, whore, OR wife, with one and only one PERMANENT choice, women will choose wife. To enforce this you have to give status to virgins and wives, and take it away from whores. Simple. Whores will complain but you can give them a one-time whore-removal card with a time limit. Find a husband now or be branded a whore forever.

> giving women choices
why
> bitches
what difference does it make
> all caps while describing rules to women in general
who’s going to listen
> redistribute status to women we like
what does that even mean
> redesign women to deserve feminism
how does that even make sense
> whore status removal card
since when are even men capable of following logic instead of their programming? Millions of young White men don’t think they deserve a woman because they don’t have a good job. Can you tell them to take a woman anyway?

> If you give women the choice of virgin, whore, OR wife, with one and only one PERMANENT choice, women will choose wife.

No.

Women don’t make decisions the way men do. They react to stimuli. Long term incentives – or even short term incentives – are ineffectual at influencing female sexual behavior. If women really were gold diggers, we would be a lot better off.

Women will have sex with the sexiest guy around, and the sexiest guy around is the guy that can make her have sex.

If the sexiest guy around is the stoned and broke musician, she will choose whore every time.

The moment I truly understood women was when I heard “How could I know in advance how will I feel about it in the future?” At that point I understood women literally cannot consent, not just to sex but even to a contract, because the whole point is sticking to the agreement even if one feels bad about it in the future. This is what a decision is, a decision implies ignoring future feelings for at least a period of time and going with it, and in this sense women really don’t make decisions. A decision withdrawable at any moment when the feelings change isn’t a decision but merely an indication of current feelings.

And this aspect alone explains a lot of things. For example social cooperation depends on people keeping promises. Even when they feel bad about them. So a society can only function if everybody who is unable stick to decisions they feel bad about – children, women, childish men – is the ward of an actual adult who can.

I suppose one does not have to be sexist about it, because it is testable, so does not need to be predicted by sex alone – and being ageist about it wrt to teenagers is definitely bad, people don’t gain this ability exactly at their 18th birthday. Fairest thing is to have a way of testing, examining this ability and let everybody try the tests. But I would expect the vast majority of women to fail it.

Not that this is a solution, but I think fulfilling the traditional duties like military service may have been meant to be like a credit rating.
Has he served with courage in the military? Has he produced an heir? Then he has honor and may enjoy these rights.
Don’t know what the female equivalent would be. Was she a virgin until marriage? Has she given an heir to her husband? Then she may… whatever whatever.

“At that point I understood women literally cannot consent, not just to sex but even to a contract, because the whole point is sticking to the agreement even if one feels bad about it in the future.”

This is for me BY FAR the most INFURIATING thing about women and the reason above all others why they need to become property.

The other frustating is that as if to mock you God or Gnon makes about 1 in 1000 women you’ll meet in your life a temporary exception to this rule (the funny thing is in all other areas they tend to have poor impulse control) and then one day this TEMPORARY NAWALT becomes a normal unreliable AWALT.

How are nunneries an abomination? It’s a group of celibate women devoted to prayer and charity. They’re not high status, nuns live modestly and have to beg for donations just to get by. The average person can name dozens of actors and politicians along with a few journalists. Very few normies could name a famous nun besides St. Theresa. And even the canonized nuns usually don’t get recognition until decades after their deaths.

If we are to have nunneries they have to be horrible places where women who no man will have are sent.

Women’s status needs to be entirely dependent upon pleasing their husbands and their children. There really should be no way out of this for any woman it creates too many perverse incentives if there is.

Two tiers of nunneries. Old widows can go to a nice nunnery if they want with full protection of law.

Nunneries for all other women except older widows have to be horrible places no girl in her right mind (even by female standards) would ever want to go (sort of a religious equivalent of Jim’s homes for wayward girls) and any honest man can claim them for marriage by abduction whether they want him or not.

Nunneries are a fine idea; the problem, is that nunneries are no longer nunneries since heretics occupied the institutions that formerly belonged to the Catholic Church.

We actual Catholics are almost extinct, but I have the grace to be in that number. We still have real nunneries. I live next door, literally, to our nunnery, which is actually rather large with many sisters. I have only ever seen one, when she walks some girls to Mass. Real sisters of the historic orders are STRICTLY STRICTLY STRICTLY cloistered. Some newer orders (but still prior to the VII coup) allowed for feminine apostolates (primary school, hospital,etc. – not intrinsically evil, but still a failed experiment I’m happy to roll back). Even these sisters are far from “high status” in anything beyond the best wishes of laity who are impressed by their vocation and manner of life, but who couldn’t begin to know them personally in most cases. And they are always subject to (obviously male) clergy who are impatient with any hint of uppitiness. Girls understand that the life of a nun will be a life of literal disappearance into obscurity or servitude. It is a real vocation of great beauty, for a woman to forego what most women find so necessary: to be seen, approved, complimented, showered with gifts and attention. It is not a status play.

A rather infuriating thing about being a Catholic, is that the Church’s historic size and influence tends to make people think they know What It Is -so, whether on the abuse crisis, history, doctrine, etc., you get to hear the strong opinions of people who don’t know much about it in general, let alone specifically.

Nunneries were a response to surplus women. Men go to war, men die, you have surplus women. A lot of surplus unowned women running around means a lot of whores or it means polygamy. Nunneries are an elegant solution.

We cannot afford them today because we have the opposite problem, we have hardly any marriageable women even if you allow a girl to have sucked a couple of different cocks before you wife her up.

You’re right, I don’t have any nuns in my family, but a few go to my parish. Generally the kind of status women are after is that of the supermodel or actress or singer. To be rich and famous and on magazine covers. Nuns simply don’t have that kind of status. (And even if they were seen as rockstars, it’d be a massive improvement on what we have today).

At any rate, even in places where Catholicism or Orthodoxy is compulsory, only a small percentage of women become nuns. It’s not like half the women take vows of celibacy and no man can find a wife. If a genuinely pious woman wants to sacrifice any prospect of having a family and spend her life serving God, it’s a beautiful thing and we shouldn’t discourage it unless the woman is clearly not cut out for sisterhood.

“Women cannot serve except by serving their husband per the curse of Eve”

Completely heretical, contrary to the traditions of the Catholic Church, the traditions of Orthodoxy, Sola Scriptura (Old and New Testaments both contain unmarried prophetesses) and common sense.

Most women should serve God by being obedient wives to their husbands like you say, but that’s obviously not the only way to serve God. Evangelization, charitable works, prayer etc. are all ways to serve God.

Believe it or not, some women are actually pious. St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Teresa of Calcutta and St. Faustina come to mind. The world is a better place and the Faith has grown thanks to such women. I see no reason to stop a truly holy woman from becoming a sister.

> If a genuinely pious woman wants to sacrifice any prospect of having a family and spend her life serving God, it’s a beautiful thing and we shouldn’t discourage it unless the woman is clearly not cut out for sisterhood.

Revelation says that no church will be perfect in the end. God has a few things against all of them.

Orthodoxy is better then Catholicism but Orthodoxy errs in allowing nunneries. Who are these unmarried prophetesses? List them?

Other then the witch who told Saul’s fortune who was not a prophet I recall all the prophets being men.

God directly said when he cursed Adam and Eve to Eve specifically. “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Let there be no doubt as to God’s position on a woman’s proper place.

Old Testament: I had Miriam, sister of Moses, in mind. If you’re going Sola Scriptura, the Bible, which usually goes into great detail about genealogy and marriages, never mentions her having a husband or children. Upon further inspection, Jewish tradition holds she was married to Caleb. Not sure how much faith one should put in literal Talmudry, but there you go.

New Testament: Obviously Mary Magdalene, apostle to the Apostles and first witness to the Resurrection. And Anna in Luke 2 is more or less performing the role of a nun and is depicted as a pious woman (albeit she’s a widow rather than a woman who never married).

“Do you even natural selection?”

Do you even 1 Corinthians 7? Scripture is clear on this issue. God would prefer if we all stayed unmarried like St. Paul, but that most aren’t cut out for it since our passions are too strong. “the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.”

The obvious interpretation of the curse of Eve is that husbands should be in charge and that wives should obey. It’s not implied that every single girl is called to marriage and that that’s the only way to serve God.

I doubt Miriam was unmarried. That would be odd enough to warrant mention. Deborah was married and her husband barely gets mentioned.

> Mary Magdalene, apostle to the Apostles

And I thought Catholic mariolatry was bad. What a joke. She wasn’t a prophetess.

> And Anna in Luke 2 is more or less performing the role of a nun

Yes, she’s a widow. No, she’s not performing the role of a nun. She is not part of the Temple hierarchy at all. Saying she’s a nun is missing the whole point of not formalizing a system for women – so that women have to exercise their informal power to obtain favor from men in authority.

> Do you even 1 Corinthians 7?

Paul did not even natural selection. He did not even anticipate Christ’s failure to return within his lifetime. He had a reasonable excuse; you do not.

> Scripture is clear on this issue. God would prefer if we all stayed unmarried like St. Paul

Bullshit, you stupid wormtongue. PAUL WOULD PREFER. Paul makes clear when he speaks from God versus his own thoughts, which he speaks most of the time. The distinction is there FOR A REASON. He is not Moses, much less Jesus.

You didn’t even mention the example of prophetesses I was thinking of: Acts 21:9. They stayed in their father’s house. Case closed.

The nature of a prophet is someone to whom God speaks who then goes out and proclaims His message. Is that not exactly what Magdalene does at the end of Johns Gospel?

“Saying she’s a nun is missing the whole point of not formalizing a system for women”

One of the foundational tenets of NRx is formalism. A group that does things informally is less accountable than a group with a formalized structure. When you have an institution with a hierarchy it’s easier to organize and get things done effectively etc I’m sure you’ve read Moldbug on this. And nuns aren’t exactly known for manipulating men in authority, they’re mostly modest and humble women dedicated to Christ.

“Natural selection”

There are multiple ways to make the next generation holy. You can be pious and marry a pious woman and pass on your good genes and properly instruct your children. Or you can devote yourself to religious life and provide a good example for generations to come. Nearly all the Apostles, Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church were unmarried celibates. It’s a good thing that people like Augustine and Chrysostom were able to fully devote themselves to ministry and teaching rather than being preoccupied with married life.

Saint Paul’s epistles are Divinely inspired and were written by the Holy Spirit through Paul. Obviously Paul wasn’t a perfect man, but God wouldn’t let incorrect teachings end up in Scripture. Even if you don’t believe God prefers all to be celibate, you have to admit that Paul’s teachings are permissible. Otherwise they wouldn’t be in the Bible.

> The nature of a prophet is someone to whom God speaks who then goes out and proclaims His message. Is that not exactly what Magdalene does at the end of Johns Gospel?

No it is not what she does. She is a women with a group of women, and she subsequently speaks to the disciples – to men in authority over her. She does not exercise authority in front of congregation. Magdalene speaking to the the disciples is the equivalent of a woman speaking to a priest, not a woman speaking like a priest.

Egypt was suffering from social decline and collapse, and incest, infanticide, and women in authority were part of that collapse. So they come out of Israel with female power, and then Moses tells those who fled Egypt, no more incest, nor more infanticide, and that women shall be property and shall not have power.

In the light of current biological knowledge he went overboard on prohibiting incest, failing to distinguish between sex likely to lead defective offspring due to inbreeding, and sex likely to lead to psychological problems due to the Westermarck effect. But compared to Egypt, close enough.

> A group that does things informally is less accountable than a group with a formalized structure

There are zero favorably reported examples of women with formal power in the Old and New Testament.

We only see women doing active manly things, for example the unnamed woman who killed Abimelech, during times of social decay.

The books of the bible cover a lot of history, and viewed as the word of God, you know what Paul said about the role of women, and viewed as mythologized and poetized history, it tells us that women in authority are an indication of social decay resulting in bad consequences for that society.

Male celibacy okay for certain intellectuals who don’t want the distraction (though I think they should have to donate sperm if they turn out to be great intellects) but there is absolutely no point to female celibacy if any honest man will have her.

“She does not exercise authority in front of congregation. Magdalene speaking to the the disciples is the equivalent of a woman speaking to a priest, not a woman speaking like a priest.”

Yes of course. I’m not arguing that women should hold authority over men (lol). I’m arguing that celibacy can be a path to piety for women and that a woman can please God without being a wife. Hence no problem with nuns.

If that is what you are arguing, Mary Magdalene is piss poor example – being a whore, not a virgin.

But your supposed facts were not claims that supported the position that nunneries are OK, but rather claims supporting the position that women should speak in Church and exercise authority in Church.

It is not OK for women to exercise religious authority over men, and always has disastrous consequences when they try it. The bible directly prohibits it, and biblical history provides reason to believe it is a really bad idea with really bad consequences. Plus, today, we observe similar consequences. Show me a church where women speak in church, and you will see a church engaged in heresy and with a collapsing congregation. A Christian congregation where women speak in Church rapidly comes to resemble a Wiccan coven, though with older parishioners.

But, back to nunneries. A nunnery should be barely distinguishable from a “home for wayward girls” – some place you send problem girls that are resisting parental authority, though somewhat less disgraceful than dragging them off to a home for wayward girls.

And this is in fact how they functioned throughout most of history. Girls usually get sent to a nunnery for sexual misconduct, as for example Heloise. The usual course was shotgun marriage or the nunnery, and if shotgun marriage not going to fly, they got sent to the nunnery. Heloise gets sent to the nunnery for banging Abelard.

Rather than nuns being high status, there should be a presupposition that they got sent to a nunnery for banging bad boys who dumped them and fled shotgun marriage – so, failures at womenhood.

The story of Heloise and Abelard reveals that being sent to a nunnery was a disgrace, and that being a nun was disgraceful and shameful. Monasteries were where you dumped problem men, and nunneries where you dumped problem women.

Nunneries and monasteries were the welfare system, and reflected a policy of not letting people on welfare reproduce. Women got to be nuns by sleeping with men who resisted shotgun marriage, men became monks for having no visible means of support.

Nikolai our social system would view excessively holy MEN with extreme suspicion.

Why in the hell would we want to encourage anti-social holiness in women? Female celibacy is at best asocial and at worst anti-social behaviour. Allowing women to pick it for themselves is just female consent by other means.

Older widows yes fine, but nunneries for younger women if they exist need to be horrible places no even semi sane woman will ever want to go too and from which any honest man can claim them for marriage whether they want to go or not.

Being sent to the nunnery needs to be a threat father can hold over the head of a recalcitrant daughter. Thus not so horrible that it is something few loving fathers would ever do, making the threat empty, but at the same time nuns must be seen as kind of pitiable and pathetic, and not all that holy. And needless to say, absolutely no sex and minimal male contact for nuns allowed.

Nuns are pitiable by definition, or does a woman need a man like a fish needs a bicycle? They can get male contact through the attached hospital and if a man there wants to bring one home (not the divorcees) good for them. Do convents attract women Just Like Us? I know many childless women Just Like Us, some have lots of sex, some have very little, some use condoms, some use other contraception, some have had an abortion, none of them are nuns. It would be a problem if convents attracted women who aren’t ugly, crazy, used up whores, divorcees, or widows with no family. But what kind of woman would go beyond saying she doesn’t want a man loudly in front of men to saying it quietly in a convent? I knew a woman who talked about how she should have been a nun in between boyfriends, what she should have done is not used condoms.

“Being sent to the nunnery needs to be a threat father can hold over the head of a recalcitrant daughter. ”

Recalcitrant daughters should be married off and if failed to do so by a certain age should become subject to marriage by abduction (though up to a certain age the father should have absolute veto on all marriages). Toxic women no men will have go to the bad nunneries (the ones NOT for older widows with children who don’t wish to be made to remarry) but it shouldn’t be a place where father’s send daughters.

If they exist it should be a place girls (their father having failed to find a husband by 20 or so) fear to go if they fail to find a husband by say 25.

To make my position abundantly clear, nuns shouldn’t have any formal power over anyone except schoolchildren and the abbess should be in charge of other nuns. Priests should also be in charge of nuns in the same fashion that nurses should obey both doctors and the head nurse.

Nuns should belong to formal sisterhoods so they can organize and undertake projects more efficiently and to better catechize new sisters, but the sisterhoods shouldn’t have any power themselves and should just do the work of the Church.

If a nun receives messages from an apparition of Christ or Mary, she should do what St. Faustina did. Tell her spiritual director and do what he says, keep a diary in the meantime detailing what Christ is telling you and do the spiritual works commanded by Him. This is more or less what Mary Magdalene did minus the diary. St. Faustina wasn’t conspicuous about it and simply lived a humble and modest life while performing what was asked of her. She wasn’t canonized and her diary wasn’t proliferated until decades and decades after her death.

The problem isn’t excessive holiness, it’s excessively conspicuous holiness. Jesus said not to pray on the street corner like a hypocrite, He didn’t say not to pray at all. Sisterhood isn’t anti-social considering most of their charitable works are in hospitals and soup kitchens or teaching children. If you’re new to a parish and don’t know anyone, chances are a nun is gonna come up to you and introduce you to people. If anything they’re excessively social.

“Nuns are pitiable by definition, or does a woman need a man like a fish needs a bicycle?” Precisely. Peppermint gets it. Nuns are ‘high status’ in the way that middle school teachers are ‘high status’. Yeah libs will occasionally say stuff like “oh football players and doctors make all this money and get all this respect, but what about our teachers? *voice dripping with sanctimony*” But everyone knows middle school teachers are low status just like everyone knows nuns are low status even though the Council of Trent says they’re holier than you.

And no, nunneries shouldn’t be places to torment young women because you’d rather have them be wives, you idiot. Sisterhoods serve an important function for the Church, the Faith, this world and the world to come. We are immensely better off that women like St. Faustina and St. Catherine of Sienna devoted their lives to Christ rather than being housewives. 95+% of women should go the housewife route, but some women are called for something greater.

Nikolai> The nature of a prophet is someone to whom God speaks who then goes out and proclaims His message. Is that not exactly what Magdalene does at the end of Johns Gospel?

No, you’re lying again, twisting the plain meaning of words. Prophet/ess is a title the BIBLE applies itself, giving many examples, and your definition does not match those examples.

For example, in Luke 13:
> The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

The Pharisees did not become prophets by the mere act of relaying Jesus’ message to Herod.

You’re trying to do a double twist, a specious definition and then a specious application. It’s disgusting. I think people should not be allowed to opine on hermeneutics until they have demonstrated basic reading comprehension by passing a graduate verbal reasoning test at 98th percentile or better. If you err in general, you will err in reading Scripture in particular. Lord save us from the heresies of pious midwits.

> Nearly all the Apostles, Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church were unmarried celibates.

Supposing that is true: it is a tiny number of people, which will not impact natural selection. However, social institutions such as nunneries and generic anti-natalist heresies WILL impact natural selection.

> but God wouldn’t let incorrect teachings end up in Scripture.

Yes He would. “Bodily exercise profiteth little.” That is false. “The dead praise not the LORD, Neither any that go down into silence.” That is false.

The Bible is not a padded playpen rendered childproof for midwits with poor reading comprehension. You need to learn to recognize when you are in over your head. That was the primary lesson of Job, and you are reasoning like one of the three foolish friends.

> “But, back to nunneries. I think a nunnery should be barely distinguishable from a “home for wayward girls” – some place you send problem girls that are resisting parental authority, though somewhat less disgraceful than dragging them off to a home for wayward girls.
>
> And this is in fact how they functioned throughout most of history. Girls usually get sent to a nunnery for sexual misconduct, as for example Heloise. The usual course was shotgun marriage or the nunnery, and if shotgun marriage not going to fly, they got sent to the nunnery. Heloise gets sent to the nunnery for banging Abelard.
>
> Rather than nuns being high status, there should be a presupposition that they got sent to a nunnery for banging bad boys who dumped them and fled shotgun marriage – so, failures at womenhood.”

Yes agreed, but I would like the proviso that they could be claimed as wives by any honest man who will take them.

“I would like the proviso that they could be claimed as wives by any honest man who will take them.”
Nuns make their vows to God. They are God’s wives. The precedent you are arguing for here is seriously dangerous to the social order. If we allow women to break their vows to God, we will allow women to break their vows to any man.

If you can steal a bride from the king of kings, you can steal a bride from the king.

You people don’t even read the Bible, do you? If a woman makes a vow, her husband or father can annul it on the same day or as soon as he learns of it.

God having wives is Hinduism, not Christianity. Christ’s bride is the Church. What is seriously dangerous to the social order is permitting all the pious chicks to indulge their hypergamic and virtue-signaling instincts by “marrying God” the ultimate alpha male. THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE BIBLE, HERETIC.

You people don’t even read the Bible, do you? If a woman makes a vow, her husband or father can annul it on the same day or as soon as he learns of it.

God having wives is Hinduism, not Christianity. Christ’s bride is the Church. What is seriously dangerous to the social order is permitting all the pious chicks to indulge their hypergamic and virtue-signaling instincts by “marrying God” the ultimate alpha male. THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE BIBLE, HERETIC.

God doesn’t have wives in the same sense that a man has wives.

Nuns exist. Many women have taken these vows for millennia, if the Father chose to annul their vows He could have made it known, He did not. Do you doubt that God is capable of expressing Himself outside of a book, Koanic? Before the nun makes her vows, she is under the authority of her father. After she makes her vows ownership is transferred to God. Could her father annul her vows to God? Could a suitor annul her vows to God? Of course not.

“What is seriously dangerous to the social order is permitting all the pious chicks to indulge their hypergamic and virtue-signaling instincts by ‘marrying God’ the ultimate alpha male.” How? Dangerous to the social order? It’s arguably slightly dysgenic but it isn’t dangerous. Upsetting to Protestant sentimentality =/= dangerous to the social order.

NIV> Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

How much more when he has already made plain his word, and “they have sought many inventions”?

KJV> Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: 28Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. 29Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Indeed Stoneman you are a blockhead, and on this rock Satan will found many heresies, for the truth will not breach it.

Blockhead> Do you doubt that God is capable of expressing Himself outside of a book, Koanic?

No, you idiot, for in order for the sayings to have been recorded in the book, they first had to be expressed outside of a book.

As for your opinion that God should repeat himself for the benefit of those who refuse to learn from books, it is already answered IN THE BOOK:

KJV> And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Blockhead> Before the nun makes her vows, she is under the authority of her father. After she makes her vows ownership is transferred to God. Could her father annul her vows to God? Could a suitor annul her vows to God? Of course not.

Of course not! The reasonings of Stoneman are, after all, a higher authority on the subject of religious vows than the word of Jehovah given to Moses, with whom He talked as a man talks to his friend, face to face:

KJV:
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. 2If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.

3If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.

6And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.
#+END_QUOTE

Mary is Jesus’ mother. Jesus’ bride is the Church. Mary is undoubtedly saved, therefore she is part of the Church. Therefore, Mary is both Christ’s mother and bride. Therefore, the vernacular expletive “Jesus motherfucking Christ” is his proper title!

However, Mary cannot be the Queen of Heaven, for it is certain that the elder is senior to the younger. Therefore Mary’s mother is Queen of Heaven, and Mary is princess. But what about her grandmother? Therefore by the principle of infinite regress, all women from Eve to Mary are heavenly royalty. And also all ancestors of Mary’s father, for surely by the principle of patriarchy Mary’s father outranks her mother. Thus Adam and Eve are King and Queen of Heaven, and Jesus is middle management, along with everyone else born around 0 AD.

It’s a bit of a fringe case but I suppose it’s reasonable to argue that a father could annul his daughter’s vows when he hears of it or on the same day. But that isn’t the point. The point isn’t whether or not we want nuns/nunneries. The point is that women’s vows of celibacy need be upheld seriously if vows of chastity are to be upheld seriously. Obviously being a nun is more like being a daughter of God than a wife, but there is a clear transfer of jurisdiction when a woman becomes a nun. The king’s wife can’t break her vows; the king of kings’ wife can’t break her vows. If we are willing to ignore the latter we will probably ignore the former.

Really the scripture you’re citing seems to support my argument about whether or not nuns can marry:
“then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.”

>The reasonings of Stoneman are, after all, a higher authority

~2000 years of apostolic succession have condoned nuns/nunneries but of course the lone Prot with his KJV will accuse others of propping themselves up as a religious authority lol

Behold the protestant, when confronted with his mortal nemeses, Tradition and common sense, erupts in a barrage of ad hominems and semi-relevant Scripture citations. Simultaneously holding that the Bible, being the inerrant word of God, is the final authority on theological matters, while also claiming that Saint Paul was an ‘anti-natalist’ heretic who failed to give due emphasis to the importance of physical fitness.

Afterwards, as if his preceding screed was insufficiently Judaic, he digs in his heels and goes on to sarcastically blaspheme the Savior and His Blessed Virgin Mother. In the true fashion of a Pharisee, he pontificates on the subtleties of Mosaic law in one breath and then flagrantly breaks the first two Commandments in the next.

“Nuns make their vows to God. They are God’s wives. The precedent you are arguing for here is seriously dangerous to the social order. If we allow women to break their vows to God, we will allow women to break their vows to any man.”

Simple then, nuns don’t get to make vows by royal decree (I mean if we allow these to exist at all).

“God having wives is Hinduism, not Christianity. Christ’s bride is the Church. What is seriously dangerous to the social order is permitting all the pious chicks to indulge their hypergamic and virtue-signaling instincts by “marrying God” the ultimate alpha male. THERE IS NO SUCH THING IN THE BIBLE, HERETIC.”

Quite right. No woman other then older widows should be able to decide to go to such places voluntarily. And such places should be sufficient unpleasant that the young women involuntarily sent (the ones for older widows need not be so unpleasant) should compete to make themselves as pleasing to men as possible so that they NEVER end up there. Subconscious fear of the nunnery should cause women to work at not being shrews.

Behold the midwit, offended in his incoherency, lashing out with more of the same:

Nikoliar> Simultaneously holding that the Bible, being the inerrant word of God, is the final authority on theological matters,

I have not said any of that, liar.

Nikolair> while also claiming that Saint Paul was an ‘anti-natalist’ heretic who failed to give due emphasis to the importance of physical fitness.

Nor did I say any of that, liar.

Look at the idolater capitalizing a human woman in the same sentence as Jesus Christ!

I especially liked Stoneman’s gamma move of, when faced with Scripture directly contradicting his quoted words, answering that he “supposes” half of God’s law is correct, and claiming that anyhow it really supports his argument, instead of admitting that he was absolutely and totally wrong. Peter may not have been any smarter, but he was a better man.

Jesus publicly rebuked the Mariolaters TWICE, and still these pompous midwits with their “traditions of the elders” think they can pull a fast one. Guess what, you pharasaical phonies: the peasants learned to read, and now your scam is done. Henceforth you will be restricted to the low-IQ and truth-flexible portions of the populace. Take your womanly robes, your long tassels, your broad phylacteries, and your queer priests calling themselves “papa”, and go preach your syncretic gospel of pagan pageant to the huddled brown masses yearning to offer cakes to the Queen of Heaven.

NIV:
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
#+END_QUOTE

KJV> And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

“…and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.”
If you don’t want your daughter to be a nun you don’t have to let her, but once she has become a nun what’s done is done. My argument is that nuns are permanently nuns (as is tradition), if being a nun is just being at a wayward home for girls then nunneries are merely a resting area between one stop on the cock carousel and the next. You want nunneries to be frightening for women, Cominator? Make them the final solution. It will have the intended effect.

Go fuck yourself Koanic. Your willingness to blaspheme the Lord and insult His mother for the sake of scoring bad boy points on the internet is pathetic.

“If you don’t want your daughter to be a nun you don’t have to let her, but once she has become a nun what’s done is done. My argument is that nuns are permanently nuns (as is tradition)”

This type of nunnery we should not allow, it is anti-social. Women exist to serve men period. They should be akin to wayworld girls homes. Any honest single man should be able to claim a nun willing or not.

Paul the anti-natalist heretic? Yes, Paul advised against marriage, but he distinguished his personal reasoning from God’s revelation, making him not a heretic:

#+BEGIN_QUOTE
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 26I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. 27Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. 29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; 30And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; 31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
#+END_QUOTE

Furthermore, at the time God was busy pulling another grand headfake on Satan, making the Adversary think Christ’s return was imminent so Satan would think short-term, while Christianity spread through Roman roads to conquer the world long-term. To deceive the brightest angel, one must also deceive the dimmest follower. So Paul was thinking short term, in a very anti-natal time for Jews:

#+BEGIN_QUOTE
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2“Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

4Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9“Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ a spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
#+END_QUOTE

But this same Paul also wrote:

> In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

In a polygamous society, some holy men can practice abstinence while all the fertile women proceed to have kids.

And in the VERY DISCUSSION on dedicating a virgin female to Christ, the context ASSUMES that no such thing as a nunnery exists, but that a woman will always be under the authority of some man who functions as father or husband, unless she is a widow:

#+BEGIN_QUOTE
36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. 40But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.
#+END_QUOTE

An Orthodox dude once told me modern Catholicism embarrasses Our Mother by talking about her too much. Melania isn’t constantly talked about, everyone knows she’s there and we treat her with a certain reverence by not talking about her. Sometimes it sounds like the Theotokos is there for gender balance. Some women were added to the honor roll of Doctors of the Church recenly, I’m too lazy to find out what they wrote, I’m sure it’s solid. Why did Aquinas think he had to be a monk? Nuns stay in their habits in their convents and the women outside either have a man to take care of them or maybe some other arrangement. Who would need to be convinced that nuns are pitiful creatures and should be appreciated for their works of mercy in a world that for some reason or other has denied them so much? It’s quite possible Catholics have too many celibate women as well as too many celibate men. Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.

Imagine joking about the Holy Family being incestuous because you think it’d be a badass move to own the Papists, and then going on to lecture others on theology. I got a great Bible quote for you my man.

Exodus 20:7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”

Say what you want about Jews, but at least they have respect for God’s name.

Koanic: “Guess what, you pharasaical phonies: the peasants learned to read, and now your scam is done. Henceforth you will be restricted to the low-IQ and truth-flexible portions of the populace.”

The peasants are, by definition, the low-IQ portion of the populace. I was planning on mocking protestantism by saying it was the natural result of teaching the low class how to read, but you made the case for me. Truly, you’d be a hundred times better off if you were illiterate. It doesn’t matter if you have the Bible memorized forwards and backwards or if your IQ is 150, a literal retard would not be stupid enough to commit blasphemy in the manner you just did. An 80IQ squatemalan peasant who faithfully prays and regularly receives the Sacraments has a far better chance of being saved.

“yearning to offer cakes to the Queen of Heaven”

And you dig the hole deeper by blaspheming the Blessed Sacrament and satirically using one of Mary’s titles. I’m sure you have all the Gospels memorized so I don’t need to quote you John 6.

“Yes, Paul advised against marriage, but he distinguished his personal reasoning from God’s revelation, making him not a heretic”

And you accuse me of specious applications. A heresy is an incorrect/unorthodox teaching or belief, a heretic is someone who believes/preaches heresy. If ‘anti-natalism’ is a ‘heresy’ then, as evidenced by your lengthy citations, St. Paul is a heretic.

I have to agree that allowing the masses to read the bible for themselves has been a disaster.

But, on the other hand, allowing the papacy to get away with re-interpreting the bible every which way has also been a disaster.

We need respect for the community of saints, for long established Christian tradition, for traditions that have demonstrate survival capability in long enduring societies, which does not mean that everyone gets to read the bible for themselves and decide what it means, but also does not mean that the Pope gets to turn two thousand years of Christian marriage on its head.

Yes, nunneries have been around for a long time. No, no one took the supposed holiness of nuns too seriously.

Nikoliar> The peasants are, by definition, the low-IQ portion of the populace.

No, they are the low socioeconomic portion of the populace by definition, moron.

Nikoliar> And you dig the hole deeper by blaspheming the Blessed Sacrament and satirically using one of Mary’s titles.

Hahaha, proof! PROOF you don’t read the Bible! The Bible NEVER calls Mary the “Queen of Heaven”:

KJV> The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jim> I have to agree that allowing the masses to read the bible for themselves has been a disaster.

Sure. Paul warns against the novice who becomes puffed up. Peter warns against those with insufficient intellect misinterpreting Paul. Jehovah’s governmental design for Israel was neither democratic nor monarchic, but patriarchal. Democratic atomized Protestantism and monarchical Catholicism are both illegitimate corrupt church forms with inherent tendencies towards heresy. That is what Reaction is here to fix. And we cannot get to the decentralized theocracy of tribal Israel except via the glorious monarchy of Solomon, or the collapse of civilization into barbarism and extended darkness. Some days it’s hard not to root for darkness.

It is stupid to quarrel over the things of the next world, of which mortals know nothing.

Let us stick to quarreling about the status of nuns, and capability of women to make vows of chastity.

I therefore ban further remarks that provocatively desecrate things that some Christians or Jews hold holy, and other Christian’s or Jews do not.

Unkind remarks about foreskin chopping are OK.

Provocative desecration will get you put on moderation, and comments containing things that some Christians are likely to regard as sacrilege will be deleted, because discussing the next world is a waste of bandwidth.

“I appreciate that both of the Catholics have labeled my sperg-pun reductio ad absurdum ‘badass’.”
I labelled that sacrilege an attempt to be seen as badass, which is what it was.

Thank you Jim for establishing boundaries of acceptable religious discussion.

I’m not arguing that nuns should be high status in the state church. I’m simply pointing out that if, in the state church, it is acceptable for a woman to ‘divorce’ the king of kings then it’s acceptable for a woman to divorce any man including the king.

There are no nuns in the Bible, but there are plenty of sacred prostitutes. Not even in the most elaborate golden age of the Temple did Jehovah conceive of or require such a thing. Harems are infinitely more Biblical. Let the Catholics institute polygamy, and we will hear them on the nun question, assuming there are any women left after Trump takes his share.

When I want badass points, I mock Muslims, Niggers and Wamen, sacred cows of the State. There’s no courage to be proved mocking Catholics; you were defanged long ago. It is like telling Don Quixote that Dulcinea is a hag. What are you going to do, have the Pope kiss my feet?

“Provocative desecration will get you put on moderation, and comments containing things that some Christians are likely to regard as sacrilege will be deleted, because discussing the next world is a waste of bandwidth.”

Christian holiness spiraling should be banned too whether of Glos’s demon worshipping form of Protestantism or Nikolai (in his newly found Papist piety) saying we should not discourage women exiting the marriage pool because “thats beautiful” even though scripture and gnon would indicate that letting young women escape the marriage pool is a bad thing.

Blatant misuse of the term holiness spiraling. Advocating something uncontroversial that’s been around for close to two millennia, standard in the worlds oldest Churches, is not holiness spiraling. Holiness spiraling is advocating extreme/controversial/unorthodox ideas as a means of displaying superior virtue, like Jesuits trying to normalize homosexuality or leftcaths trying to bring back deaconesses.

Scripture is on my side, Saint Paul repeatedly endorses female celibacy for those who want to devote their lives to God. Yes I find the devotions of women like St. Faustina, St. Gertrude the great and St. Brigid to be beautiful, you caught me.

Have you considered that countless of men over the ages, far far to the right of you and far more sexist than you could dream of being, saw no problem with nunneries. Why did they not see this problem? Do you possess a certain wisdom that they lacked?

Ditching millennia of traditions because you think you know better than your ancestors is what progs do. Rather we should try to learn from our forefathers instead of laying waste to their institutions.

Supposing that women generally become nuns for reasons of holiness and purity is holiness spiraling.

Nuns are not married to God, because marriage implies and requires sex and the possibility of children. The rules that apply to one do not apply to the other.

The word “marriage” refers to the fact that the state, the state religion, society, and families, should try to make sure that when a man has sex with a woman they are stuck with each other, thus avoiding defect/defect equilibrium, and enforcing cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Unless God actually bangs those nuns, no marriage.

Marriage is being stuck with each other, and marriage does not actually start until the marriage is consummated. Allowing nuns to get married, and indeed pressuring them to get married as in the dissolution of the monasteries, supports marriage, it does not undermine marriage.

The telos of marriage is family. The telos of nunneries is keeping bad girls out of circulation – nunneries were the welfare state providing women an alternative to prostitution.

> Saint Paul repeatedly endorses female celibacy for those who want to devote their lives to God.

Saint Paul also tells us that younger widows should remarry. I don’t think it realistic to suppose that any substantial number of women give up on marriage and family because they want to devote their lives to God, and I don’t think Paul supposed that either.

And it is crystal clear that people around the time of Abelard and Heliose did not believe that the primary purpose of nunneries was to accommodate women who had a calling to serve God.

> countless of men over the ages, far far to the right of you and far more sexist than you could dream of being, saw no problem with nunneries.

They were in a society with surplus women whose families wanted to restrain them from reproduction, and their nuns and their nunneries were low status, as illustrated by the story of Abelard and Heliose.

Abelard seduces Heliose. At sword point he marries her. He then ditches her by dumping her in a nunnery. Her father is so pissed by this that he castrates Abelard. Heliose remains a nun, very much against her will, being damaged goods.

Their nunneries were the welfare state for unwanted women who could not be married off, and prisons to keep wayward girls out of circulation till they could be married off.

A calling to serve God was a polite fiction in most cases, and society presupposed it to be a polite fiction for any one case.

“Have you considered that countless of men over the ages, far far to the right of you”

You sound like CR already. Allowing women to leave the marriage pool distorts the marriage market in favor of the remaining women. Pool needs to be as favorable to men as possible. We can’t allow women to opt into nunneries for the same reason we can’t allow 100 of them to marry the same alpha male.

Nikolai your exception would have every woman who is betrothed by her father to a man she doesn’t like at least threatening to join a holy order. We can’t have that, no female choice (at least for young fertile marriagable women) has to be an inflexible rule of the restoration regime.

I have yet to see anyone explain the logical consistency of allowing women to ‘divorce Christ’ but forbidding them to divorce the king. Koanic the Judaizer dislikes the idea of nuns altogether, Cominator sees it as of negative utilitarian value, but assuming there is a Catholic/Orthodox presence in restoration territory, the state church will have to decide whether it will marry runaway nuns.

Frankly Cominator I think your concern of “distorted dating markets” is unfounded. Every church that has nuns also has celibate men, I have yet to hear of a single instance in history in which a society’s fertility suffered because of a massive wave of young women becoming nuns. Celibacy is a tall order for women and men alike.

“Frankly Cominator I think your concern of “distorted dating markets” is unfounded. Every church that has nuns also has celibate men,”

Perhaps when feminism fades from living memory this escape from marriage might be allowed without causing too much damage but as long as it remains within living memory no escape for it for women can be allowed.

I don’t know what nun vows entail, but if they involve vows to God, aka Jehovah, then they should be unbreakable once tacitly ratified by the patriarch. We should have slavery and concubinage for bad girls, not casual disdain for nunneries. If you begin to ironically make whores holy, you will end up with whores being unironically holy, which is what we have now got.

StoneMan> I have yet to see anyone explain the logical consistency of allowing women to ‘divorce Christ

Nobody is defending breaking vows made to Jehovah. You are not even following the topic.

As for “claiming”, you are describing conquest, and many a Viking did raid a nunnery. The Law has rules for claiming women who are not betrothed to a man, and they make no provision for the special status of nuns, because JEHOVAH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT NUNS.

While the law contains a lot of ancient social technology that is a lot better than today’s, it contains a sufficient quantity of stuff that just did not work, for example its position on usury, that we need to be flexible about adopting it.

As for “claiming”, you are describing conquest, and many a Viking did raid a nunnery. The Law has rules for claiming women who are not betrothed to a man, and they make no provision for the special status of nuns, because JEHOVAH DOES NOT CARE ABOUT NUNS.”

Agreed generally on these points with the law (though I don’t think we should base everything on the law and we should generally go with Anglo tradition when the law conflicts with Anglo tradition prior to the progressive era).

Pretty hard to criticize the Law’s anti-fragile design for debt when Western civilization is about to collapse from the popping of history’s largest debt bubble. I don’t see what’s so difficult about making personal finance international in the age of database and Internet.

The Biblical law’s design for debt was extremely fragile, as demonstrated by the fact that it was abandoned (no Jubilee years ever happened) reinterpreted, re-reinterpreted, evasively worked around, and re-re-reinterpreted, up to nearly modern times.

In contrast, biblical marriage or something close to it has been the standard operating system for successful societies since the time of the patriarchs.

The problems with our current debt system are fixed by the Singaporean system where the state compels individual thrift and savings with a forced savings system, and monitors term transformation, and if firms engage in excessive term transformation, threatens to provoke a run on them, analogous to fighting wildfires by deliberately starting forest fires when the weather is such that the fire is unlikely to get out of hand.

The idea that no jubilee years ever happened is implausible. What is your evidence for it?

Obviously people will always try to work around restrictions on internal predation, because they are evil. Those are the ones you want to kill, for eugenics.

The Singaporean system is operating under Western hegemony, and thus unable to practice salutary institutions such as slavery. People who lack the wit to save of their own accord should be enslaved, not given a vote. That is the other half of the solution to the problem of usury. It is not just the lender who is at fault.

Enslavement is the equivalent of a bank run, but at the individual level. Because everyone is “free”, Singapore is a pyramid of slaves, and that is fragile.

Reactionary marriage is a naturally occurring phenomenon wherever men and women are exposed to thermodynamic constraints. Sound economics is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Therefore the correct social technology for marriage will be common, and the correct social technology for the economy will be rare.

II Chronicles 36:21 indicates that sabbatical years were observed only sporadically, which makes it unlikely that Jubilee years were observed at all.

Maccabees, the Talmud, and the writings of Josephus make no mention of celebration of Jubilee years, and one would expect them to have mentioned them, since they mentioned sabbatical years.

> Reactionary marriage is a naturally occurring phenomenon wherever men and women are exposed to thermodynamic constraints. Sound economics is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. Therefore the correct social technology for marriage will be common, and the correct social technology for the economy will be rare.

Commandments eight, nine, and ten are sound social technology for the economy:

But when it comes to debt, interest, and corporations, things are more complex. The biblical social technology did not work so well, perhaps because of change in the economy to a more complex and extended order, and is even less appropriate now than it was.

Ah I see, I was confusing jubilee and sabbath years. I will have to reconsider whether a jubilee ever happened. Obviously we should expect some modification of the 50 year cycle to account for the modern economy. However a grand deleveraging every 50 years is probably a good idea.

A variation on the proverb:

When it comes to Vikings and nuns, God is on the side of the big axes.

Deleted for telling us what traditionalist Roman Catholics were saying. It was not what they were saying in these comments.

All your comments are the same comment. You tell us that we are saying what leftists imagine rightists to be saying – which is to say, agreeing that leftism is right and true, and that we are bad and stupid.

I think you are reading too much into II Chronicles 36:21. A society observing the Law would be hard pressed to ignore Jubilee, given its integration with land and slave pricing. I expect that early Israel, from Joshua on, observed it at least once.

Leviticus 27
“No person devoted to destruction l may be ransomed; they are to be put to death.”
Jephthah’s law.

If they were still executing daughters, I think they were also observing Jubilee.

The priests had a large interest in seeing Jubilee observed, since it marked when land became irrevocably theirs, and how to value offerings. I’m sure they would’ve complained loudly had that lapsed.

Usury restrictions based on the Old Testament keep being tried, and people keep backing off from them, working around them, and legalistically re-interpreting them out of effect. From the Old Testment itself, and from historical records such as Josephus, looks like they did the same thing.

As to why they did the same thing, we have no evidence, but we know why other people did that same thing – that the biblical usury restrictions did not work for them.

The late Christian version (no interest on debts against the person, no interest on debts to fund consumption, but interest on debts secured only by identifiable and specific property) was reasonably workable, but everything tried before that by everyone else failed.

To have a Christian banking system, you have interest bearing debt on land and housing mortgages, extinguishable by the return of the house in good order and condition, and debts against corporations, extinguishable by giving up the corporation to the people that the corporations owes money to. But the biblical system was designed to prevent property, such as land from being transferred, while the Christian system that actually worked was designed to facilitate the transfer of land and houses.

> Usury restrictions based on the Old Testament keep being tried, and people keep backing off from them, working around them, and legalistically re-interpreting them out of effect.

The same can be said for capitalism and taxation under the Laffer limit. Means nothing.

> The late Christian version (no interest on debts against the person, no interest on debts to fund consumption, but interest on debts secured only by identifiable and specific property)

This sounds pretty close to the Law anyway, except that the practice of mortgages reflects an atomized society. I rather suspect the failed versions were not in the spirit of the Law and were based on economic benightedness. Mortgages and the atomized society have been a spectacular failure. Atomization is a major enabler of left holiness spirals, in the same way that rooting a tree in sand permits it to topple due to erosion.

> But the biblical system was designed to prevent property, such as land from being transferred, while the Christian system that actually worked was designed to facilitate the transfer of land and houses.

You are arguing against a larger system, the tribal allocation of land, without which the prohibition on usury with regards to land is nonsensical. If land is not allocated on a tribal genetic basis, then it should be allocated on a market economic basis.

Unless usury is banned, Western societies will always be vulnerable to leftist economic holiness spiral, because the complaint is valid. It is as benightedly libertarian to permit crack dealers on the street corner, and no Reactionary society would do so.

“Usury” is a specific word; “interest” is a general one. “Usury” should mean charging your fellow citizen an interest rate. “Interest” should mean something you charged a foreigner or corporation.

Obviously banning interest is stupid, and allowing usury is stupid. Everyone agrees on that, and then disagrees on how to define what is usurious.

Most “usury laws” failed because they banned interest, not usury. I have yet to see a society in which the interests of the poor and the tribe were actually protected as the Law intends.

There must be some rational and complete mechanism for distributing land. Tribal warfare is the traditional human method, and it works. Economics is the new method, and it works… for a while. Let economics distribute land in the city, and tribal warfare distribute it in the countryside. Problem solved.

Letting silly women follow their misguided religious, altruistic and self-abnegating impulses to become nuns and thus die old unloved spinsters is an act of animal cruelty on par with feminism. May there always be a Viking to rescue such lasses from Catholic asses. Monkhood is for men.

Thank you for writing this. It echoes the reactionary talk about the need for the “thousand statesmen,” a would-be political “army” of those with the skills to govern, to be available when the time comes. The Trump admin shows the trouble with attempting to throw a single candidate-avatar-hero into the system without the requisite people to back him up. The “articles of the Canon” work well as a good set of Schelling points to rally around; it’s not a political manifesto or party platform, which makes sense, since the point isn’t to have a public banner of this for electoral politics but to have an informal set of positions that ‘our guys’ will naturally signal association with.

Tangential question:

>The New and Old Testaments, as generally interpreted by the community of saints in the apostolic succession, is sound social technology.

Have you written before about Catholicism vs Orthodoxy for a place to find this? I’ve been wanting to connect with a Christian tradition after being ‘faithless’ for years. I grew up Mormon, but despite the social/material strength of that community, its gnostic demiurge theology and implicit Enlightenment values seem to be poor ground to return to. Catholicism seems more familiar in its Western European thinking, but the current papacy and the post-V2 reforms make me troubled. Orthodoxy seems traditional, but also so culturally foreign that it almost feels like I’d be LARPing. What should be my mindset when approaching these questions? Thanks in advance.

Start with the Institutes of Biblical Law, by R.J. Rushdoony. Just read the Introduction if that is all you can manage. There are no churches at the moment, but there is a large network of private individuals who are reading the Scripture and coming to the right conclusions. When the time comes, there will be thousands of us ready. Jim is dancing around the flame and coming closer, it would be nice if one day he joins us, as Cromwell finally got with the program. It would be a Saul to Paul type of event. If Rushdoony’s books are too information rich (he had an IQ of 180 and wrote for seminary students), then Ted Weiland’s website https://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ also can get you in the right direction.

For now, house churches and family bible studies and dailiy devotions are what we have, as it was with our forefathers in the days leading up to Cromwell.

Obviously we should abide by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter, which means we should understand the reasons and intended effect of the laws, and apply and interpret them in ways that accomplish the intended effect.

Are you referring to Rushdoony, or Weiland? Either way, the position is that the letter of the law expresses the spirit of the law, you cannot have one without the other. There is also the principle that the law interprets the law, it must be taken as a whole. Those who take fragments of it can get into nasty and unreasonable pickles.

The Law is to be taken literally, but as a whole. And for cases de novo, the entirety of the Bible is to be taken as case law for formulating principles that can be applied to the case. This is the spirit of the Law.

Law Legend and Incest in the Bible, by Calum Carmichael is of particular interest, showing the relationship between the explicit Laws and the case law aspect of the historical parts of the Bible.

The Law is the ten commandments, which are summaries and categories of the 613, which form the statutes, and the histories are the case laws or judgements. Scripture distinguishes law, statutes, and judgements, just as common law has a tree-like hierarchy. When Jesus said two laws summarize all the others, he didn’t thereby do away with the others. The others express and explain the two. (Love God and Love Neighbor)

You said: Obviously we should abide by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter, which means we should understand the reasons and intended effect of the laws, and apply and interpret them in ways that accomplish the intended effect.

If you follow that line, you will just end up as a Jehovah’s Witness. That is their position. The spirit and the letter are inextricable. Everyone who tries to separate them is like one who separates spirit from body; you end up with a corpse that soon rots.

As for the intended effect, this is unknowable beyond the overall goal: God’s Will is that mankind multiply and fill the earth to maximum capacity, including plants and animals as well as humans. In a couple instances I am certain that the Bible has had minor scribal additions made to “explain” a law. I can tell, because the explanation given isn’t nearly as good as the explanations available today with modern knowledge and science.

The Law is fractal in nature. To explain it would take whole libraries; if you want to discuss it we can, but the intent of the law can be a topic of endless discussion and debate unless one has the foundation: Love God, Love your Neighbor. All else is extra.

In software you try to avoid side effects. The Law displays its Divine origins by being nothing BUT side effects. It is simple and effective, yet understanding exactly how it operates is in some cases beyond the greatest intellects. Rushdoony pointed out that some Law violations don’t show their side effects for hundreds of years. It is accessible and useful to the Congo man of IQ 60, or the 3 year old child, but can keep a man of IQ 180 engaged his entire life.

You have made prior comments about the Law needing sufficient ambiguity to keep people on their toes, but specific enough to be fair and reasonable and not shock and surprise people. The Law is already this way, if you use it in the way it is traditionally used.

You said: It seems unclear what he thinks biblical law would mean in practice. … And I am not seeing discussion of the intended effect.

The law itself tells what it means in practice. The law is praxis. As for the intended effect: maximum dispersal and amount and enjoyment of life on earth, ending up in a stable equilibrium that neither stagnates (as per Calhoun) nor yet requires warfare (as per dieoff.org) Towards that goal, family formation, property rights, and all those other things are necessary.

Usury against one’s fellow vis-a-vis personal necessary expenses, eg food and clothing is clearly forbidden. Today, of course, we do need to add allowance for (modest) housing, electricity, and transportation.

But you raise a valid point: a lot of debt nowadays has little to do with necessary items. It has mostly to do with acquisition of personal status.

Also, the elephant in the room is that said debt is not communal debt. It is not debt of one’s fellow to another, but of a corporation (often global) to a person. The Old Testament falls rather short, albeit one can do some special provisions regarding corps that consist of at least 50% of one’s fellows, eg community banking — in which case there could be limitations on taking interest for certain kinds of temporary loans of certain amounts. But it’s hard to argue against interest taking in the most general case, which is the prevalent one.

The gorilla in the room is that a lot of today’s world is no longer zero-sum game, so it is possible for both the loan-taker and the loan-giver to ultimately prosper.

In this case, of course, interest-taking ought to be permissible.

As to business loan of a fellow to one’s fellow, medieval rabbis came up with the device called “heter iska” which is a nifty investment device for parterships.

Old Testament (OT) law is ancient poly-sci and is intensely interesting if you view it through that lens. One of the biggest limitations on usary in the OT is the seventh year Shmita wherein all debts are canceled. If we really did this, the longest loan you could get would be 6 years long, and the entire economy would safely deleverage every 7 years. Instead of having boom and bust cycles, you would have nation-wide, predictable deleveraging. If you need to finance a project with a 10 year loan, too bad-you need to break it into 6-year-long, usable stages. You’re an asshole banker who knows that your adjustable-rate mortgage with a balloon payment will ultimately screw over the mortgagee? Too bad, you just lost your shirt, because lending to fools should not be enable bad bankers to pass the cost on to others, or switch jobs before the music stops. Also, the year long Schmita, wherein you couldn’t loan your money might drastically curtail bankers as a whole. 7 year Schmita is possibly the easiest way to cut the Gordian knot of bad usarious relationships by placing a reasonable bound on the length of enslavement that you can place on yourself.

It’s a bad idea to disincentivize the lenders. Also, shmitta was done in fixed 7-year cycles, which is NOT the same as loans with 7 year maturity (which is what you’re proposing). Also, shmitta was about loans between fellow Judeans/Jews. These loans were NOT interest-bearing, so, not usury. Not made by bankers, but as a form of kindness of rich people towards the poor folk.

It is clear that Hebrew biblical restrictions on usury were a disaster and they almost immediately came up with workarounds.

Christian restrictions on usury, failed similarly, but they eventually came up with a Christian restriction on usury that worked.

The Christian restriction that worked meant that you could not charge interest on consumption loans, but you could issue an interest bearing mortgage over assets, including over a joint stock corporation, which loan had to be dischargeable by delivery of or surrender of the asset in good order and condition.

That worked: So, no interest on a credit card that the borrower can use to buy food, booze, and cigarettes, but the borrower can be punished for failure to repay. Interest on a housing mortgage, but the borrower cannot be punished for failure to repay if he returns the underlying asset in good order and condition. Similarly, loans to a corporation pay interest but are dischargeable by the shareholders losing the corporation to the lenders.

That Christian social technology worked. The Old Testament social technology on usury was a miserable failure, and swiftly abandoned or worked around.

The workable late Christian social technology on usury was that you could not make interest bearing loans against a person, only against a particular identifiable asset, where a corporation counts as an identifiable asset, and you cannot enforce an interest bearing loan against a person, only against the asset.

No. Not a disaster, if you understand that the law/ethics of 0-percent loan-giving operated in pastoral seminomadic setting, most likely pre-Iron Age, intra-tribally. Gold and silver were not as widely circulated and people used consumables, by weight, as items of exchange. So, for instance, a well-off man would loan a bag of grain of a certain weight, and expect it back within a certain period of time.

But once the Israelite tribes took over Canaan and started living with the settled people, assimilating and mixing with them, new realities formed. Israelites of 6th century BCE were quite different from 11th century BCE. And the latter, in turn, even more different from ones in 100 BCE. The whole “Good Samaritan” fable — more concretely, the contrast between the Samaritan and a Cohen — would have been absurd to an ear of a shepherd from 1100 BCE. Filial, clan, and tribal loyalties were real then.

The fully contextualized discussion of usury in the Law emphasizes that it regards the poor. The short version simply forbids it altogether. In Jesus’ parable of the talents, the master endorses the action of depositing money with exchangers to profit by usury.

The aim is not to prevent capitalism, but that brother may not prey upon brother. Usury towards foreigners is unambiguously allowed.

The relaxed interpretation would be that a Biblical society can permit usury but not towards those below the poverty line. The strict interpretation would be that two neighboring Biblical societies would have to provide international personal credit to each other, because internal usurious personal credit is forbidden.

I am fine with either interpretation. Bear in mind that there is no Biblical bankruptcy except the predictable Jubilees; the mechanism for debt resolution is slavery. It is appropriate in such a case for the debtor to have the legal “home court advantage” vs usurers.

In either case, I do not see how the Biblical position was a failure. Rather, societies that fail to observe these restrictions collapse due to internal predation.

The historical prohibitions against usury of which I’m aware focused on interest as the evil, rather than intra-national brotherly predation as the evil, as the Bible clearly indicates. I believe excessive usury is a significant factor in the collapse of Western societies. Thus I do not believe it has been tried intelligently, or that its record is terrible.

In my view, it is better that brethren not charge each other interest, except via the intermediation of corporations. Even if both men are rich, an interest rate feels like a gouge. There are other ways to structure it. An interest rate is an open-ended gouge, which invites conflict during times of societal stress, when unity is most needful.

So I would endorse the strict Biblical interpretation – no personal usury between fellow citizens.

College debt obviously should be forbidden, and in place of college debt, enforceable apprenticeship, where a private business trains you, but you are subsequently compelled to work for that business for a time.

The Law gives special rules for land. If a corporation owns land, then it can mortgage. As for other property, I’d say corporations can mortgage, but individuals must mortgage internationally.

For property essential to personal survival and livelihood, such as housing and vehicle, the Law’s principle of mercy regarding millstones and cloaks and houses applies. The typical American consumer, mortgaged to his TV-glazed eyeballs in car, house and land, is an abomination. Millennials cannot imagine inheriting or buying outright such necessities of life, but this is unnatural Keynmunist poverty.

> Corporate debt?

Corporations are not brethren, being bloodless fictions.

The “Christian” critique of usury as evil because interest is evil has no Biblical precedent except in the excuses of the wicked servant in Jesus’ parable of the talents. The Creator is the original Capitalist, and we the harvest.

>College debt obviously should be forbidden, and in place of college debt

Overly rigid.

1) Any debt, including college debt, can be secured by property.
2) Even when such loans partly unsecured, lenders can use information about the applicant (IQ, previous work history, criminality, actual loan amount), the major/training, and even information about the whole family, to approve or disapprove a loan.

In today’s complicated world training and practice should be decoupled more than ever? Do you even actually believe that? Do you know anyone who employs men fresh out of school? What does he think? Kys fgt.

There’s no reason to favour debt of any kind. Debt is a gamble that the future benefits of a project currently unaffordable outweigh the fact that bringing future resources artificially into the present entails reducing future resources for that person, intensifying competition for current resources for the rest of society and undermining the stability and reliability of economic planning for the entire society.

If you want a low time preference, future-oriented society, inculcate the habit of saving up for things.

The one single exception is for things utterly necessary for leading a normal life, such as buying a house. These loans MUST be 100% secured with no ‘second charges’ and the obligation on the borrower to make their payments must be concrete and inescapable.

The biblical prohibition on usury turned out to be unworkable and disastrous, and Jews and Christians have been struggling with it ever since trying to find some formula that prohibits bad interest and allows good interest.

Your solution is disastrous, and is the reverse of somewhat workable formula the Christians eventually came up with after unsuccessfully trying everything else:

The the non disastrous formula that Christians eventually came up with, after trying everything else, was interest bearing loans on property, which debt can be fully extinguished by returning the property, and loans to limited liability corporations, which can be fully extinguished by shareholders losing the corporation, and the people the corporation owes money to becoming shareholders, and non interest bearing loans to the person, which non interest bearing loans can be and are enforced by draconian methods. Loans that can be used for consumption, and loans enforceable against the person, rather than against a particular identified item of property, cannot bear interest.

Deleted for telling us what we think: “the right insists that”. Pretty sure that that is not what the right insists, and if you genuinely thought yourself a rightist, you would not attribute such beliefs to the right.

CR you display the economic ignorance typical of a leftist. Too much easy credit in real estate still. Credit for housing should be massively restricted and harder to get then it is now.

Credit should be mainly “good debt” for capital purchases for businesses. Credit for things like housing and college that everyone wants otoh is a bad thing, it pushes prices up to where people HAVE TO borrow and that should not be the case.

@pterantula: because you’re a dumb Irishman of Bostonian persuasion, I’d ignore you, but I happen to care about truth and being understood by others.

If I happen to be a well-off software programmer who has a son who wants to be an electrical engineer, and I don’t want him to be a slave to a particular corporation and their particular specialization/job training, I should be able to obtain for him a loan, secured partly by my own property and partly by an expectation of his future earnings — and enable him to go get a more generalized EE education, with clearly listed curriculum. There is nothing wrong with academia, as long as it’s honest that it’s ultimately subservient to industry.

Yes, secured by property. But loans against the person cause problems, and inflate college prices.

Further, college is not a very good source of training, and causes, and is caused by, too much power in the hands of academia. We need more industry training, by legally privileging industry training, in the way we are now legally privileging college training.

Binding apprenticeship is better than inextinguishable college debt, though a loan against property might well be better than binding apprenticeship.

Further, a portfolio of successful projects is a much better credential for a software job than an a credential from a high status college. The main value provided by a high status college is training in avoiding hostile environment lawsuits. Their training in software engineering is very bad and getting worse.

There is no thing called computer science that you can force into a man and then he’ll be good at anything. The trivium has a reputation for triviality for a reason. So “computer science” is “taught” in Python now. Would be better to do c or asm so the overgrown children will have to design data structures on paper. Oh, no one needs to design a data structure in 2020? What exactly is he specializing as? Pull some strings and get him in at your company, genius. You’re the one who said today’s world is too complicated to train for, oh wait, you said something retarded instead. A ten year apprentinceship would be better than what we have now but three or two is enough to prove himself and be useful. Now go build a wedding hall that doesn’t collapse when people stand in it. Socrates and Aristophanes already commented on education, but the world is so much more complicated now, why, anyone can read anything that was historically considered important from the privacy of Descartes’ fapping desk. Your mind is as keratinized as your dickhead.

Deleted for telling us what the libertarian literature and Austrian economics says.

It is not what Austrian economics, libertarianism, and libertarian literature says.

All your comments are the same comment. “Hail fellow evil stupid hateful white male reactionary. I agree with and totally support your stupid hateful beliefs, in fact I am twice as stupid and twice as hateful”

You will not acknowledge our actual beliefs, or libertarians actual beliefs, or conservatives actual beliefs, because you will not acknowledge the evidence and reasoning for those beliefs

Master Jim,
Despite your assertions that biblical usary laws were tried and found wanting almost immediately, don’t you think the timing of boom and bust cycles in our modern economy to be interesting? Things seem to go wonky every ~10 years or so. If deleveraging of loans were on a predictable cycle instead of when the sand pile is too high or the house of cards too fragile, might that be interesting? Instead of playing musical debt, might some enforced nation-wide deleverage point make boom and bust less violent?

Every old type libertarian, and every reactionary, agrees that our fiat money Keynesian state sponsored banking system does not work well and causes serious injustice and serious economic problems, exhibit A being the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown.

But restrictions on usury generally get abandoned or legalistically worked around. They have a really bad record. Tried many times, usually failed horribly.

Some restrictions are needed, but it is hard to get them right, easy to get them very wrong. Pay day loans, college debt, and semi permanent credit card debt are obviously very wrong. But simply banning these bad things is not going to work. Surprising and unwanted consequences will follow.

Biblical marriage and family law worked, and for thousands of years successful societies have had something very similar, usually a little less extreme, but not much less extreme. Biblical restrictions on usury failed almost immediately, and were endlessly revised, creatively re-interpreted, or worked around.

Can confirm about the homeschoolers. Average family size of the homeschool group I had contact with was six, with twice as many 8+ than <4. This was in a solid blue state, though rural, where the churches I was in had family's of 3-4 kids.

I was a Jimian atheist for a while and became Catholic. I didn’t believe in the supernatural at first, but I wanted to join a religion for all the reasons trads and reactionaries frequently mention. It did feel super LARPy at first, singing strange songs to a deity I didn’t believe in and participating in elaborate rituals I barely understood. The nice thing about religions though is that they’re always looking for new members, so they’d be more than happy to help you out if you’re new, whether it’s a Catholic or Orthodox parish.

If you’re looking for a community of fellow based and redpilled edglelords, I regret to inform you that you probably won’t find that outside of twitter. The best you can hope for in a priest is a 1980s leftist and the laity will likely be Rubio tier cuckservatives, (though there are plenty of shitlib parishes; Biden, Pelosi, Cuomo, Jesuits etc.) And if you’re surrounded by leftists, a priest who’s thirty years behind the Cathedral is a breath of fresh air.

The leadership of the Church, unfortunately, is totally cucked. They will give up their flock to the enemies of the Church if put under any pressure like Covington.
They won’t defend the most basic principles of the Faith. Popes and bishops used to excommunicate kings for trying to get divorces, but Cardinal Dolan won’t do a thing about NY legalizing third trimester abortions. Pope Francis is routinely promoting priests like him to become Bishops so we’re getting even more dopey modernists. And even the most right wing priest will threaten you with arrest if you try to have a Pauline marriage. Orthodoxy is probably a little less cucked, but I don’t think it makes a huge difference.

All that said, joining the Church is still one of the best decisions I’ve made. Gaining faith and having a spiritual relationship with God is a priceless gift. Your mindset should be trying to go from faithless to faithful. It’s easier than it sounds, just do what the faithful do and eventually it will come. Try a few different parishes, settle on one you like, attend Mass every week, read Scripture and homilies of the Church Fathers and hang out with other parishioners. It’ll take a while and it’ll feel LARPy at first but, like with women, you have to fake it till you make it. Then once you truly believe, start going through the formal initiation process and receive the Sacraments.

Orthodoxy is nationalist, monarchist and anti-feminist and more genuinely opposed to homosexuality. I don’t care too much about the theology its a good church for restored Empire and Catholicism is not.

Sorry, that makes absolutely no difference. Russia is a degenerate wasteland that is cucked beyond redemption. Of course, you are in Australia, right? Maybe you are so used to off the charts level cucking that modern Russia looks downright reactionary. Even so, modern Russia is still cucked to the point of being a collapsing, unfixable society.

The best porn of young white women comes from Russia. Their most famous pornographer, Grigori Galitsin, spent two and a half years in prison for it but retired a wealthy man, married to one of his models. Another guy got eight years in prison because his models were age 10-12. Russian prisons are awful, but in the USA, he’d be certain to get life without parole.

Opposing prostitution (which is basically what porn is) is not right wing or reactionary as only feminist societies and extreme puritan societies ban prostitution. Prostitution was perfectly legal throughout Christendom with some extreme puritan exceptions (and occasionally temporarily banned due to Syphilis outbreaks) from the time of Charlemagne until the progressive era (when feminism started being a problem).

Russia does not ban prostitution it bans espousal of female equality and it decriminalized wife beating. Putin’s Russia is thus far far less cucked when it comes to male-female relations then the US.

Erotic artworks from Pompeii have been covered or locked away from public view for most of the time since the first wall murals were discovered in 1592. Renaissance artists loved painting naked bodies, but never depicted outright sex acts like their Roman predecessors.

So Jim, what is the right-wing position on pornography? The word, and laws against it, first appeared in the Anglosphere around 1850, which in your chronology makes anti-porn a left-wing movement.

Thinking about porn implies you are worried about repressing male sexuality, which in turn implies you are not worried about repressing female sexuality. Romance literature is a far more serious problem with far more severe adverse effects. After we have fixed women’s romances, then we will think about porn.

I’m not gonna go all Florence and say that the Orthodox can’t be saved. I have a lot of respect for the Orthodox Tradition, but I think Catholicism is better.

Monarchy is not only the best form of governance, but also the best way to arrange almost any institution. A nation needs a king, a business needs a CEO, an empire needs an emperor and a Church needs a Pope. The Orthodox Church runs almost like a confederacy, with a bunch of loosely organized autocephalous national churches all doing their own thing but still in communion with each other. It’s definitely a hundred times better than any form of Protestantism, but overall it has a sub-optimal organizational structure.

The Roman Catholic Church has, rather obviously, not been preaching heresy for one thousand years. You regularly advocate the heresy of Caesaropapism and then say anyone who disagrees is the real heretic.

And just lmao at low church prots calling Orthodoxy and Catholicism heretical. Yeah the institutions with two millenia of Apostolic Succession got it all wrong, the only ones who truly understand Christianity are the guys who say you go to hell for playing electric guitar /s

“he Orthodox Church runs almost like a confederacy, with a bunch of loosely organized autocephalous national churches all doing their own thing but still in communion with each other.”

The strongest church is not desirable as the local bishops should answer to the king in whos territory they inhabit and not some super priest far away who can cause trouble. The Catholic Church has always had this problem since Gregory VII and the Orthodox Church never has.

“You regularly advocate the heresy of Caesaropapism and then say anyone who disagrees is the real heretic.”

Papal Supremacy is Donatism and Caesaropapism was the official church doctrine in the days of Constantine.

True. Which is why the Tabernacle and Temple ruled over the Israelites only, although Jehovah created all. Even when Naaman acknowledged His supremacy, he was given leave to continue to bow to the Syrian idol, for harmony of state. How much more, when each denomination acknowledges Jehovah? There is no centralization of authority in the New Testament, only the authority of the apostle over his converts, and Jesus over all.

The bishops should answer to both the king and the pope, with the pope being their direct superior in ecclesiastical matters and the king being, well, the king. State and Church are naturally intertwined, but they generally have separate responsibilities and areas of authority/influence and should try their best not to encroach on each others territory.

The heresy of Donatism is the idea that the Sacraments aren’t valid if given by a sinful priest. I have no idea how that relates to the Papacy. And even in the days of Constantine, St. Athanasius once stopped the emperor’s royal carriage to have a theological argument and wouldn’t let go until Constantine admitted he was wrong.

Your model has been tried in England and hasn’t worked out all that well. The Catholic Church has it’s problems, but it’s nowhere near as bad as the Anglican church. https://www.toronto.anglican.ca/2018/12/28/bishop-robertson-married-at-cathedral/
Not to sound like glosoli, but I can’t help but feel like this is God’s revenge against Henry VIII. In the current year, independence from the state actually serves to make the Church less pozzed. If the Church were a wholly owned subsidiary of the US empire then half the bishops would resemble Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the Pope would be a transgender of color. The Church has it’s problems, but it’s not that bad, not yet at least.

“The heresy of Donatism is the idea that the Sacraments aren’t valid if given by a sinful priest.”

The Donatists also denied the Imperial supremacy in the church, saying “what has the Emperor to do with the Church”. That has been the RCC’s position (in theory anyway) since the investiture controversy. Donatism then, Donatism now.

“St. Athanasius once stopped the emperor’s royal carriage” probably an apocryphal story like the donation of Constantine. Constantine died an “Arian” Christian anyway and Athansius was not an Arian so it can’t be true that Costantine agreed with him on theological matters.

“Your model has been tried in England and hasn’t worked out all that well. ” It doesn’t work with Democratic governments it works pretty well with monarchies and dictatorships even if they are (Stalinist style) communist dictatorships. The Orthodox Church is better then the Catholic Church.

The national Pope is properly a local archbishop or patriarch/metropolitan who is if not chosen by the king the king at least has the OPTION of installing and deposing.

Putin has not picked Russia’s patriarch, but there is no question that the Orthodox Church acknowledges that he has the right too should he want.

No international churches, and no voluntarily joining nunneries (should they exist) except for older widows, if older women widows want a monastic lifestyle and don’t want any risk of being made to remarry fine. And furthermore non-widow nunneries need to be horrible places no woman wants to go that women who don’t end up married by a certain age get thrown into.

The Schelling Point that I think is most widely acceptable at this point is the Thousand Statesmen. It keeps adherents to the idea focused on what actually needs doing: aiming for power, and the wise use of it.

During the phase of mobile banditry which inevitably occurs when any government falls our adherents main task is the ruthless extermination (or AT LEAST driving into exile plus sterilization) of all leftist men and the auctioning off as “lifetime concubines” (non hereditary sex slaves but forbidden from working even with their masters permission outside of “entertainment and hospitality” I don’t want slave labor distorting the productive labor market but I have no objection to them being forced into prostitution) of all leftist women.

If you are left wing on the woman question, economics or the nationalism/globalism question you get defined as leftist. We can be somewhat lenient towards those with moderate views in only one category if they’ve fought in our ranks (who would merely be defined like English dissenters but not killed). But otherwise we need to act like Suharto did towards leftist and not the merciful way the right normally acts. The answer to 1917 is 1965.

Some very Jim like views will form the secular part of the state creed (though I think the religion will be Orthodoxy or some form of Low Church Protestantism, Catholicism is not acceptable)…

After a king is made stationary bandit we can’t do much more… but all the leftist will be dead and we’ll have put in our anti-cathedral.

> during the phase which occurs we should destroy the capital of men who said things and destroy capital that said things also

Do you count Hank Hill as a leftist, you’re going to have a tough time getting him to talk like a frogposter, but he’d be quite happy giving men who cause trouble for his friends black eyes and split lips, we need block captains who proudly proclaim his slogan, I’m gonna kick your ass. Meanwhile, Dale needs to kill John Redcorn, beat Nancy and demote her to slave, dunno what he wants to do with Joseph, and he needs a real wife.

Our biggest concern isn’t how to beat heretics into silence, or how to punish the men who materially supported the enemy, but eugenics, many of our men have garbage tier women, including lots of chinks.

Hank Hill is a cuck centrist who would be a santimonious Nevertrump type. But I’m sure he could be made to believe women should be subject to men and that leftist economics and globalism was stupid and unworkable if the official creed preached it. Unreliable moderate Republican types and apolitical centrist get to live and to keep their capital… but they get dissenter status. No state (enlisted military is fine and in wartime Brevet juniour officer is fine) or quasi state jobs. But all leftist men other then top scientists and engineers die and all leftist women (I’m aware they are a majority) are sold as concubines at auction to right NON-dissenters.

Peggy Hill would be killed before anyone else on King of the Hill both for leftism and because her character made the show a lot worse (I really really really hated her)… she is an obnoxious feminist.

If Dale wants to tolerate his wifes actions (which its been proven he knows about) perhaps because he percieves her as having a higher SMV so be it. Under king me (as opposed to king Jim) Dale COULD theoretically kill them not because of mere adultery (which I do NOT wish to make a life or death matter) but because they passed off a bastard as his son which is far far more serious then mere adultery. In reality in Dale’s case though because Dale clearly actually knows and accepted it (because the color and because he secretly monitors all calls in and out of his residence) not really.

Peggy is an evil meddling TRUE feminist and needs to die. Shes beyond being saved by beatings, far far worse then Nancy. I also thought Peggy Hill should die 10 years ago and while I was right wing then I wasn’t as right then as I am now.

Peggy is not really a loyal wife either. She’d be a nightmare of divorce rape and false accusations if Hank ever really tried to rein her in and Hank is IMHO almost as much of a shell as Bill is (Cotton KNOWS this which is why hes so disappointed with Hank).

Divorce rape? When that’s abolished Dale can get rid of Nancy like he should have done the second Joseph was born. Trve feminist as if women even have thoughts, she’s a school teacher, Hank permits her to be a feminist, so she’s a feminist. Peggy and Cotton have the legitimate grievances that Hank refused to get fetility treatments to give Bobby siblings and takes Buck Strickland way too seriously, in the future Strickland will have to clean up his act too instead of making Hank fix everything for him.

Try showing up, announcing yourself block captain, and spanking Peggy, watch Hank show up with a golf club. Oh, guess he was just a cuckservative and should have shown up for ideological rehabilitation.

John Redcorn is a lowlife wagon-burning professional demon worshiper and his entire purpose in life is to embarrass and humiliate the people who are raising his bastard son for him. Do you care about those people or about your ideas?

If you want to be right-wing, be a conservative first. “They can take our lives, but they’ll never take our propane and propane accessories”.

Don’t insult Hank. He’s the most responsible man in the area and him and his Lord keep everything running. Empower him.

If I’m commander of the occupying forces in Strickland during the period of mobile banditry Hank gets labeled a “dissenter” which not having a state job won’t have much effect but Peggy gets labeled an arch feminist and the consequences for her would be deadly.

How can you stand Peggy? I thought the writers should have killed her off long ago.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but try coming to [place] and talking to my woman like I’m an irrelevant quasicriminal and you’re concerned about her conduct have the authority to have her killed, I mean, that’s the point of the who bitch is this meme. Peggy is annoying, she’s constantly sabotaging everything she can get her hands on, okay, ban her from social media, put her under house arrest, now she’s Hank’s problem exclusively, more importantly let Hank know he’s allowed to not even pretend to listen to her stupid ideas and allowed to stop her before she embarrasses him instead of having to clean up afterwards. If he’s not recognized as block captain because he’s a public servant and not a government employee, that’s good, it means he can keep his community together while the carpetbaggers run around replacing the city council every few weeks and coming up with new mandates for Hank to dissent from, there’s a reason Hank is such a meme with apolitical GenZ frogposters.

Maybe Homer needs Ned to have some kind of formal authority over him so he can keep his badboy attitude with formal disrespect while not feeling humiliated about taking Ned’s advice. Is Ned good enough, or is he a cuck who probably gives money to Africans?
Glosoli would presumably want to get rid of Quimby and put Reverend Lovejoy in charge, not a bad idea. Maybe I would try to build a city council around Lovejoy, Flanders, Burns, Wiggum, and Moe Szilak, though Burns has a faggot in his employ, Wiggum is fat and lazy, and Moe runs sports betting and/or gives booze to Barney and/or is somehow ugly or whatever, and Lovejoy probably doesn’t believe in the Sacrament and might not have apostolic succession and his organist once played rock and/or roll. Better to just leave Lisa in charge because being a little girl she’s never done anything wrong in her life unlike her older brother who skateboards on the sidewalk. Having standards is good, we need to encorage men to have standards for themselves, that’s the go to church meme.

“Glosoli would presumably want to get rid of Quimby and put Reverend Lovejoy in charge, not a bad idea. Maybe I would try to build a city council around Lovejoy, Flanders, Burns, Wiggum, and Moe Szilak, though Burns has a faggot in his employ, Wiggum is fat and lazy, and Moe runs sports betting and/or gives booze to Barney and/or is somehow ugly or whatever, and Lovejoy probably doesn’t believe in the Sacrament and might not have apostolic succession and his organist once played rock and/or roll. Better to just leave Lisa in charge because being a little girl she’s never done anything wrong in her life unlike her older brother who skateboards on the sidewalk. Having standards is good, we need to encorage men to have standards for themselves, that’s the go to church meme.”

Would be hard to decide who is to be lord of Springfield. Burns despite brilliance in some things and management success is too senile and would constantly need Smithers to talk him out of acting like a mobile bandit… Flanders… well we saw what happened when he was merely made school principal.

Lovejoy is a priest… priest should almost never be given executive authority on any level.

Smithers is the kind of faggot we will tolerate and that Putin’s Russia tolerates… he was ultra ultra closeted until being openly gay became high status and is still not flamboyant… he was also loyal competent and efficient and capable of managing in Burn’s absence too. I’d almost be inclined to name him lord (as not senile and not prone to Burns’occasional impulse to be evil for the lulz) except giving a faggot executive power is almost like giving it to a woman… unless they feel they are getting alpha male supervision inclined to act like a woman in power.

Not criticising the content of the site, which I haven’t read, but any Christian website naming itself after Ganymede has my pedophile radar up at full alert. That Bruce Charlton chooses to post there, makes me look at all his writings with suspicion. Ganymede was the boy lover of Zeus in Greek mythology.

“The myth [of Ganymede] was a model for the Greek social custom of paiderastía [that is, pederasty], the socially acceptable romantic relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male. The Latin form of the name was Catamitus (and also “Ganymedes”), from which the English word “catamite” is derived.[4]”

The little tagline at the top of jrganymede.com reads “we endeavor to give satisfaction”

Thanks for the link to Junior Ganymede! I’ve been following it for a while and enjoy the reactionary/dissident-right intersection with the LDS community. I really do feel pulled in different directions in terms of figuring out spiritual things, and would love to chat more. Are any of you on Twitter?

Jim, you might find this very enlightening.
Al Benson Jr. wrote a brief but wonderful little masterpiece based on Gary Norths Political Polytheism and his later amazing outlier Conspiracy in Philadelphia. There is certainly something to say about the loss of scripture in qualifications of trust for public service, along with North’s observation God is absent in the USC.
Benson’s introduction, ‘If Liberty Was The Object Why Did They Give Us Centralism’, is a great place to start:

Very very good summary. There is one element I would add. Suppose someone wanted to make a study comparing democracy to monarchy by comparing Germany to Saudi Arabia. This study would be worthless because both are American client states. Political systems work very differently in independent vs. non-independent states.

The problem with democracy is increasing “faction”, eventually civil war. The reason post-WW2 Western Europe was able to evade that and have peaceful moderate democracies playing by the rules was that they were all American, more precisely, Blue Empire client states. The range of political competition was limited. Every time this control weakened, political competition became far more vicious and violent.

So while the intense factionalism of American democracy seem like an exception, it is so only because America is independent. The relative peacefulness and stability of most democracies 1956 to 2000-2010 or so was simply because they were not independent.

The case for the opposite (monarchies, dictatorships) is less clear-cut albeit one might make a case.

Was it Faction when Americans decided to start snipping their dicks and sacrilegiously using grape juice instead of wine in their simulations of the Blessed Sacrament, when they decided to impose tolerance of criminal behavior of faggots on local communities? Was it Faction when radio and TV were used to promote blasphemous Beatles songs about love, when people started thinking in terms of karma instead of redemption? No, it was heresy. What Faction let Nancy and John Redcorn get away with it? The dualist faction of heretics who say Jospeh is in principle no different from Dale’s son who never got a chance to exist.

America isn’t 250 years old, it’s 400, patriotism doesn’t mean the Gettysburg Address and the beginning of the Declaration of Independence under its current hermeneutic, it doesn’t mean the system. When we’re among friends we should use words to mean what they actually mean, otherwise vxxc might think you’re the leftoid you’re pretending to be.

You’re triggered. Again. And playing social games trying to win a point of scholarship.
“I don’t care” so much you’ve responded. Twice. Please, leave the lying to the politicians.
“Get to work” at folk activism, presumably.
You don’t even understand what I’ve said. Your responses don’t make sense as responses. And I’m going to let that misapprehension stand – just like your real enemies will.

Great post as always Jim, this line really got me “We have an aristocracy, and black whores are at the top.”

It struck me as hyperbole at first and then I remembered that Colbert is genuinely trying to get Cardi B to give the State of the Union rebuttal. Functionally retarded black strippers are our noblemen.

Politics is power.
Federalism is the path to power we can take.
Survival and the restoration per above is what we must do, Federalism is power that we can do and not just or even primarily through the courts.
Or elections.

As the Cathedral crumbles power will lie fallow- not its natural state.
Pick it up. Take it. Kill for it.
THEN one can implement manifestoes.
For Trump is not Reagan – he’s Gorbachev.

Not being a Reagan is a good thing. So many people act, LARP at being a conservative. Usually badly. So when a professional actor (and professional motivation speaker at GE factories) comes and does the acting and motivational speaking actually well, idiots believe it. Sure. A good actor is better at LARPing a conservative than most amateurs.

But if you remove talk and posture and stick to action and action only, there is little to respect about Reagan.

It did push through many a rotten door in its march through our institutitions but again you’ve clearly never seen a communist or post communist wasteland. As for marching through our institutions- see rotten doors.

The Soviets were never the real threat – the traitors in America always were. The only reason the USSR was capable of threatening the US was American communists. Regan dealt with the Soviets because no one wanted to face dealing with the traitors – now we’re in a much weaker position because Regan gave money, time and power to the traitors in exchange for defeating a weak external enemy.

> but again you’ve clearly never seen a communist or post communist wasteland.

He who sees through a glass more darkly than most should avoid the word “clearly”. I live in a post-Communist utopia. And I assure you, THEIR skin tone is unchanged, and their future bright. Whereas America has neither bright skin tone nor any future at all.

Have you been to Russia et al? Based on reports received over the years, filled with busloads of Chinese and Indian and Middle Eastern men absconding with (or more often, defiling and abandoning) the wombs that should be making the future workers and warriors of the nation. Their future sounds as bad as America’s. Glad you got into a post-Communist Utopia.

Based on my travels, Poland and Hungary are thriving white-opias, while Russia and Ukraine are communist wastelands. When you’ve had 45 years of communism vs. 70+, living people remember the previous system and are able to re-create it.

If Russia had abandoned communism in 1962, they could have re-created the old society. By 1991 the people needed to guide that transition were all dead.

When my feminist mom turned 30, she finally listened to her anti-feminist mom, found a nice-guy husband, and became a traditional housewife, but taught us kids only feminism. When that failed us, we had nothing else to fall back on, our grandparents being long gone.

He means to save the People no matter what, the State cannot go on like this it will kill the nation.

To save us the State must change or die.

If Trump cannot reform the state he can still unravel it.

To reform the State would require Solon and Alexander incarnate in one man.

But to unravel the State he need merely be Gorbachev – or even Honneker. He need merely stop enforcing a rule as Honneker did or enforce rules that unravel the fragile existing state as Gorbachev did (cracked down on drinking – unaware that Vodka was being used as the de facto currency).

So we don’t need a giant man.
We need a man who is willing to try and change – anything.
A man willing to admit mistakes have been made.

“Why do we have war, poverty and other social ills, despite the fact that nobody wants these things? Is it that people have some kind of inborn aggression and stupidity that won’t go away?

[…]What happens is that, despite their best intentions, people tend to fall into a trap. That trap has a name: The Prisoner’s Dilemma. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a mathematical model of the tradeoff between cooperation and competition. Our problem is that everything in our society is set up for competition […]

The main reason to compete is when there’s scarcity. But soon, with AI and 3D printing, we’ll be able to make what we need. We can end widespread scarcity. We don’t have to fight each other. Then we’ll all live happily ever after!”

These doofuses are giving a course at MIT on this, how is it possible to be this clueless?

This “big think” course will ask fundamental questions about the nature of
science, psychology, economics and politics, through the lens of
understanding the tradeoff between competition and cooperation. We will
study mathematical models of this tradeoff, like the Prisoner’s Dilemma,
and connect with evolutionary theory. We will examine the psychology of
motivation, and optimism vs. pessimism about the “human nature” debate.

The thesis is that technological change increases the value of cooperation
and decreases the value of competition. This gives us an unprecedented
opportunity to redesign our institutions so that they cooperate rather than
compete with their constituents. The key advances of artificial
intelligence and personal manufacturing (3D printers) will soon make it
possible to end the material scarcity that prevents us from developing the
culture of empathy, cooperation, and rationality that we need for the
future. We will examine alternative designs (and welcome yours!) for the
economy, government, education and justice systems. Come save the world
with us!”

My best friend in High School graduated MIT in 2004 and was extremely smart. Our high school offered AP physics but not calculus based AP (which was the only kind MIT would accept).

I had an AP exam prep book which was for both AP Physics “B” and “C” (our high school only offered the non calculus based exam AP course B). He asked to borrow it for I think a week (maybe two) to study for the calculus based exam. Of course he got a “5” (the highest AP exam score) on the calculus based exam studying a prep book for a week or two despite not taking the calculus based AP course.

He was a white guy from Massachusetts who got into MIT (from a high school where they hadn’t let anyone in for years) so probably better then other admissions cases but at least until VERY recently everyone who went there was VERY smart.

Being smart has little influence over seeing reality. We were all in AP not a big deal. Unfortunately I stopped associating with leftists entirely. Every time I am forced to associate with them now, like at weddings, I bring a barf bag and have it at the ready at all times while making all the racist and sexist jokes I can muster in a short time frame. Put that in your crack pipe bitches! Smart or dumb, the creatures still believe the same circus.

He wasn’t political in my memory. His parents though were kind of like the Flanders (eerily so they had a family newspaper like the Flanders and he was locked out of all tv except channel two/PBS until he was 13) if they were prog Christians…

I will socialize with normal people but I generally avoid politics or deeper discussions. That’s bc I either get blank stares if I’m talking about non reactionary stuff, or I get the weird looks/ smirks if I say anything reactionary

Amusingly, girls seem to find it funny if I say reactionary things to annoy them

Leftist males I simply won’t speak to. Based on anonymous conservative I’ve come to the conclusion based on anonymous conservative that Leftist males

I will socialize with normal people but I generally avoid politics or deeper discussions. That’s bc I either get blank stares if I’m talking about non reactionary stuff, or I get the weird looks/ smirks if I say anything reactionary

Amusingly, girls seem to find it funny if I say reactionary things to annoy them

Leftist males I simply won’t speak to. Based on anonymous conservative I’ve come to the conclusion that Leftist males are using a sexual reproductive strategy that involves destroying all competitors. And based on Jim I’ve come to the conclusion that they are all priest fanatics

Meaning Leftist males are fanatical priests who want me castrated and enslaved so they can get more females and free labor.

And even if it was Mary Magdalene, you shouldn’t blaspheme saints, it’s bad for your soul. One wouldn’t refer to St. Augustine as a whoremonger (well maybe some prots would).

At no point was I advocating that women should speak in church or hold ecclesiastical authority, rather I was giving examples of unmarried women who were pleasing to God. If I was some crypto-leftcath guy I’d be citing deaconesses in the early Church, that’s become their line lately. If they actually start ordaining women I’d try to go FSSP and if they start cracking down on them I’d strongly consider switching to Orthodoxy.

There is no reason to believe that Mary Magdalene was single, was a virgin, or that she exercised any authority over men, or had any formal role in the early church. If she was single, probably because a whore, not a virgin, which is not pleasing to God. What undoubtedly would have pleased God is that she remedied her whoredom by marriage, which likely was the outcome, though we have no indication that it was the outcome.

“In the criminal common law of England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance. The term was applied to a woman who caused trouble and who disturbed the peace by arguing and fighting with her neighbours all the time. The Latin language name for this type of woman was communis rixatrix. This name’s grammar only applies to females. This makes it clear that only women could commit this type of crime.”

to Wikipedia proper

“In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisance—a troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually chastising, arguing and quarrelling with their neighbours. The majority of individuals punished for scolding were women, though men could also be labelled scolds.”

Legal equality necessitates and results in a denial of biological inequality.

I wonder if you are woke to the reality that women are, socially culturally and legally a caste above men. The harmful legal equality you talk about is nowadays a mirage.
Of course you know that. But you don’t want evenness, you want to overturn things. amd be the privileged party.

Evenness alone would bring great advance in the female mind: if they were treated like men, they’s quite rapidly grow less irrational, irresponsible, denialist, and overtly provocative and manipulative.
If more men got a grain of salt and stood clear of let’s you and him wrestle acts, women would quite rapidly lose their conflict-instigating ever-running mental programs.

If there were equality, it would be in most women’s interests to obey a mentally above man cherishing them.
Nature has provided us all with a number of mansuckers that women are safe from any threat of equality. Which among other things means they aren’t going to develop psychologically.

As to false rape accusations, force upon the accusers a verdict twice as heavy as that for the alleged crime, and in no time you will have healed them from from the “confusion” and “delusion” coming from being “creeped out”.

Just hold them accountable for what they do, and within 2-3 generations they’ll learn to be creeped out by what one ought to be creeped out, instead than the slightest instance of behaviour in a man misaligned with dominant gorillas and cunning womanizers.

> As to false rape accusations, force upon the accusers a verdict twice as heavy as that for the alleged crime

The problem is not so much false rape accusations, as disinclination to complain about real rapes. Observe the female response Rotherham and Cologne.

We not only need to put a stop to false rape accusations. Far more importantly, we need to put a stop to Rotherham and Cologne.

They not only accuse those that we do not want them to accuse. They fail to accuse those that we do want them to accuse. What women hate is not rape, but having sex with a man who turns out to be less alpha than she supposed. Hence their rage at white college males, and their conspicuous lack of rage at Islamic rape jihad.

The extraordinary and vicious rage and hatred directed at high status white male heterosexual frats is because they do not dare rape, dare not sexually coerce women, having too much to lose, and thus feel like fake alphas. And nothing enrages a woman worse than having sex with a seeming alpha and finding he is not actually all that alpha. That is a thousand times worse than being raped, and they are getting it all the time from frat boys.

If high status frats really could rape girls and get away with it thanks to their immense social status, girls would be as relaxed about it as they used to be about the Hollywood casting couch, and even more relaxed than they are about Sweden and English Mohammedan rapes.

The big problem is not that women complain about fictitious rape and sexual harassment, but that they fail to complain about real rape and real sexual harassment.

So we need to make sex and sexual advances illegal for men not on the basis of how the woman feels about it, since her feelings are complicated and difficult to discern, but on the basis of how the husband or father feels about it. Only thus can we put a stop to Rotherham and Cologne.